With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". id. at ¶ 39. In the intervening eight years, the plaintiff has not identified any visit to a ranch containing captive antelope or any plans to visit such a ranch in the future. In contrast, Ms. Feral’s declaration does express a concrete intention to visit wild antelope in Africa. See Feral Decl. at ¶ 23 (“I intend to ensure that a member of the FoA staff or I continue our regular travels to Africa to see ... African antelopes_ In fact, I have plans to go to Senegal every year between November and January to check on the recovery efforts.”). The generalized statements offered by the plaintiff in the instant case are not sufficiently concrete to satisfy the requirement of imminent injury. See, e.g., Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 496, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 173 L.Ed.2d 1 (2009) (<HOLDING>); Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 564, 112

A: holding vague allegations of bias insufficient
B: holding that environmental groups that might someday return to a contested habitat did not meet the actual or imminent standard required for injury in fact
C: holding that one letter sent a year prior to the filing of a motion to compel was insufficient to satisfy the requirement to confer
D: holding that plaintiffs vague desire to return is insufficient to satisfy the requirement of imminent injury
D.