With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". his claim is too speculative to show a reasonable possibility of persecution. Zheng argues that the BIA engaged in “reverse speculation” in this regard by assuming that he might join a church that might not be subject to persecution, but that argument stands his burden of proof on its head. Zheng bore the burden to prove that he faces a reasonable possibility of persecution if returned to China. As explained above, he has provided no basis to disturb the BIA’s conclusion that he failed to do so. Zheng also argues that the record shows a pattern or practice of persecution of unauthorized Christian churches in China. Zheng does not cite any authority finding such a pattern or practice on the basis of a similar record. Cf. Xue Zhen Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1136-38 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The only evidence of record he cites for this

A: holding that to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution an applicant must establish that he would be singled out for persecution or that there was a pattern or practice of persecution of similarlysituated individuals
B: holding that state department report was not enough to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of christians in china
C: holding that in order to demonstrate a pattern and practice of persecution against a particular group petitioner must demonstrate that persecution is systemic pervasive or organized and is committed by the government or forces the government is either unable or unwilling to control
D: holding that country reports describing sporadic persecution of unauthorized christian activities did not compel the conclusion that there is a pattern or practice of persecution in china
D.