With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Karmen Nazarian, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, see Nagoulko v. INS, 338 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Nazarian did not suffer past persecution and that her fear of future persecution is not objectively reasonable. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 839-40 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Further, Nazarian’s claimed fear is

A: holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution
B: holding that a wellfounded fear requires petitioner to show more than a generalized or random possibility of persecution
C: holding that the asylum standard for past persecution or wellfounded fear of future persecution is lower than the clear probability standard to show eligibility for withholding of removal
D: holding that court was not compelled to find past persecution or a wellfounded fear of persecution where the petitioner was arrested detained for four hours and experienced some physical mistreatment
D.