With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". government’s treatment of his family as well as its alleged treatment of other political opponents. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision. While Wanyama’s brother was fired from his government-associated position in 2004, even assuming that he was fired in retaliation for Wanyama’s article, his firing would not rise to the level of persecution. See Lopez-Amador v. Holder, 649 F.3d 880, 884 (8th Cir.2011) (“ ‘Persecution is an extreme concept’ that ‘does not include low-level intimidation and harassment.’ ” (quoting Zakirov v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 541, 546 (8th Cir.2004))). Similarly, the “suspicious remarks” the member of parliament made to Wanyama’s mother fail to rise to the level of persecution. See Quomsieh v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 602, 606 (8th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Wanyama concedes that no family member has

A: holding that incidents of harassment and unfulfilled threats of injury are not persecution absent physical harm
B: holding that to constitute persecution the harm must rise above mere harassment
C: holding that isolated physical violence and unfulfilled threats perpetrated by serbian citizens against an ethnic albanian in kosovo constituted harassment not persecution
D: holding that to constitute persecution harm must be more than harassment
A.