With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992)); see also Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir.1997) (“The petitioner must prove something more than violence plus a disparity of views”). Perez’s membership in the Guatemalan civil patrol and his ranking as the patrol’s commissioner do not suffice to show an imputed political opinion. Arriaga-Barrientos v. U.S.I.N.S., 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir.1991) (mandatory service in the Guatemalan military did not demonstrate imputed political opinion). Additionally, since Perez failed to produce any evidence to show that he would likely be tortured by, or through the acquiescence of the Guatemalan government, he is ineligible for protection under the Convention Against Torture. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1194 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the failure of Perez’s attorney to

A: holding that petitioner must demonstrate it is more likely than not that he will be tortured upon his return
B: holding that to qualify for protection under the convention against torture an alien must show that he will more likely than not be tortured in his home country if removed
C: holding that cat applicant must establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to his native country
D: holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to review whether alien established that he will more likely than not be tortured if  removed
B.