With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the timing of the wife’s complaints, three months after the alleged threatening calls, as well as the timing of Anura’s application for asylum and generation of documents mere weeks before the deadline, appeared to be the creation of evidence rather than the credible recitation of events. The record does not compel the opposite conclusion. See, e.g., Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir.2000). Further, the IJ found that even if Anura had been credible in his account of the alleged threatening incidents, they would not have amounted to past persecution. Threats standing alone “constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual ‘suffering or harm.’ ” Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The IJ also reasonably discounted Anura’s

A: holding that an alien had a reasonable fear of future persecution because he had received death threats was followed appeared on a death list and because his colleagues who received similar threats were killed
B: holding that alien who had received numerous death threats and whose colleagues were murdered by the military had not proven past persecution
C: holding that where petitioner testified that some of her cousins had been killed because they served in the military and that she had received two threatening notes she had demonstrated past persecution
D: holding that threats standing alone generally do not constitute past persecution
B.