With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". agreement that any asylum applicant may "rely[ ] on evidence of a forced abortion or sterilization — whether personal or spousal — in attempting to demonstrate persecution based on political opinion,” Maj. Op. at 309 (emphasis added), I fail to see what additional evidence an applicant whose spouse was subjected to a forced abortion or sterilization would have to show to carry his burden of proving political nexus. 13 . Because petitioner Dong, the only petitioner whose claim we address on this appeal, had not participated in a traditional marriage ceremony, I need not determine now whether the BIA's rule would also be reasonable as applied to individuals who were not old enough to marry under Chinese law and who participated in such a ceremony. Compare Junshao Zhang, 434 F.3d at 999 (<HOLDING>), and Kui Rong Ma, 361 F.3d at 560 (same), with

A: holding that the bia rule is unreasonable in this context
B: holding that the bia rule is reasonable
C: recognizing this as the general rule
D: holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte
A.