With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". his motion that had not already been presented to and rejected by it in its earlier decision affirming the IJ’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. See § 1003.2(b)(1). An examination of the record confirms that the evidence upon which Sunarto relies in his motion, including the incidents described in his affidavit, reiterate instances of harassment and discrimination that Sunarto described during his hearing before the IJ. In particular, the affidavit merely recounts Sunarto’s claims that he witnessed harassment of ethnic Chinese and non-Muslims during unrest in Indonesia in 1983, May 1998, and in 1999. In his motion, Sunarto never claims that he was physically injured during these incidents. See Mikhailevitch v. INS, 146 F.3d 384, 390 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Nor does he claim that his family members

A: holding that to constitute persecution harm must be more than harassment
B: holding that incidents of harassment and unfulfilled threats of injury are not persecution absent physical harm
C: holding that harassment or discrimination does not rise to the level of persecution under the ina unless it is accompanied by physical punishment infliction of harm or significant deprivation of liberty
D: holding that to constitute persecution the harm must rise above mere harassment
C.