With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2008) (citing Gebremichael v. INS, 10 F.3d 28, 36 (1st Cir. 1993)). Moreover, “an alien’s speculation or conjecture, unsupported by hard evidence” is insufficient to establish nexus. Morgan v. Holder, 634 F.3d 53, 59 (1st Cir. 2011). The evidence in the record does not compel a finding that Ruiz-Escobar established a nexus between his alleged past persecution and his family membership. In particular, Ruiz-Escobar’s. testimony regarding the 2011 break-in does not support his assertion that he was targeted because of his membership in the Ruiz family. Ruiz-Escobar said he had no idea Who the purported narcotraffickers who broke into his apartment were, who they were looking for, or why they were looking for that individual. See Perlera-Sola v. Holder, 699 F.3d 572, 577 (1st Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the IJ reasonably observed that, if

A: holding attorney violated rules 3214 and 32116d when he failed to keep his clients informed about the status of their cases failed to communicate with his clients after their repeated requests for information and failed to  account for or return client money from retainer fees
B: holding that petitioner failed to establish nexus because although his testimony was deemed credible he failed to identify any of the assailants and more importantly their motives for attacking his father
C: holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance due to the alleged conflict of interest because the defendant failed to demonstrate a conflict as nothing was presented to refute the attorneys testimony that his loyalty was to his clients
D: holding the appellant was deemed to have abandoned an issue for which he failed to provide any argument or supporting authority
B.