With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b). We review for substantial evidence and will reverse the BIA’s determination only if the petitioner shows that the evidence compels such a result. Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir.1997). We deny the petition. Maldonado’s asylum claim is based on a single conversation with two men who identified themselves as military police seeking information about Maldonado’s employer. Maldonado claimed that he subsequently received vague and unfulfilled threats against himself and his family. These incidents do not compel a fact-finder to conclude that Maldonado was persequted. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Maldonado’s fear of future persecution is not

A: holding that threats standing alone  constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm 
B: holding that threats standing alone generally do not constitute past persecution
C: holding that threats combined with the murder of a fellow preacher constituted past persecution
D: holding that harassment threats and one beating did not constitute persecution
B.