With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". there is no evidence that the family planning committee will follow through with its December 1, 2003 threat of sterilization (in the event Lin should “twice” not “show up”) if Lin returns to China. Furthermore, this court could not find and the parties do not cite any case indicating that an alien should be granted asylum on the basis of one conditional “threat” contained in a notice to appear. See Boykov v. I.N.S., 109 F.3d 413, 417 (7th Cir.1997) (upholding the BIA’s conclusion that an alien’s “account of vague threats, without more is not a basis for fearing persecution in the future”). Courts generally have concluded that aliens have a well-founded fear of future persecution in cases that involve more than mere threats. See, e.g., Lim v. I.N.S., 224 F.3d 929, 934-35 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In a similar case cited by Lin in support of

A: holding that alien who had received numerous death threats and whose colleagues were murdered by the military had not proven past persecution
B: holding that threats standing alone generally do not constitute past persecution
C: holding that absent past persecution an alien can demonstrate eligibility for asylum based on a wellfounded fear of future persecution by demonstrating that he or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable
D: holding that an alien had a reasonable fear of future persecution because he had received death threats was followed appeared on a death list and because his colleagues who received similar threats were killed
D.