With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". C Unfortunately, the BIA has not revisited firm resettlement in a published opinion since Soleimani was decided in 1989 under a different, discretionary regime. However, our colleagues on other circuits have done so, and we benefit from their wisdom. There is general agreement (among circuits to comment) on several points: First, the government bears the initial burden of showing “an offer of permanent resident status, citizenship, or some other type of permanent resettlement” such that the firm resettlement bar applies and the burden shifts to the alien to rebut it. See, e.g., Sall, 437 F.3d at 233-34 (noting that the IJ misstated the burden of proof by putting it on the applicant before the government established a prima facie case of firm resettlement); Diallo, 381 F.3d at 693 (<HOLDING>); Salazar, 359 F.3d at 50-51 (noting that the

A: holding that after the government meets its initial burden of demonstrating firm resettlement the asylumseeker may rebut the presumption by presenting evidence to the contrary or show that he falls within one of the two exceptions in  20815a and b
B: holding that under the regulations the ins bears the initial burden of producing evidence that indicates that the firm resettlement bar applies and should the ins satisfy this threshold burden of production both the burden of production and the risk of nonpersuasion then shift to the applicant to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she had not firmly resettled in another country
C: holding that once the government presents some evidence indicating that asylum is unavailable on the grounds of firm resettlement the petitioner bears the burden of proving that such ground does not apply
D: holding that the government bears the initial burden of producing evidence that a third country offered the applicant some type of permanent resettlement or evidence a third country officially sanctioned the aliens indefinite presence
A.