With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". have found that similar evidence compels the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to withholding of removal. In Salazar-Paucar v. INS, we held that threats from Shining Path guerrillas combined with harm inflicted on family members constituted past persecution and thus entitled the petitioner to a presumption that future persecution was likely. 281 F.3d 1069, 1074-75 (9th Cir.2002). Similarly, in Tagaga v. INS the record compelled the finding that future persecution was more likely than not where military officials threatened to try the petitioner for treason upon his return. 228 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir.2000). There is no evidence that the abuse inflicted upon Njuguna’s family came from a source other than the Moi regime. See Cardenas v. INS, 294 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). It would be unrealistic to expect Njuguna’s

A: holding that record compelled conclusion that telephoned threat came from persecutors in absence of evidence to the contrary
B: holding that the alj is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion
C: holding that there is an inference from the existence of a blank for the name of defendants lawyer and from the absence of any evidence to the contrary that defendant was not represented by counsel
D: holding that a statutory presumption is a rule of law requiring a trier of fact to reach a particular conclusion in the absence of evidence to the contrary
A.