With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Bateswar No. A071 495 910 (B.I.A. May 27, 2009), aff'g No. A071 495 910 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 17, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Bateswar failed to establish that he had suffered past persecution. As the IJ found, Bateswar’s March 1992 ar rest did not rise to the level of persecution. See Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the arrest was unrelated to his

A: holding that to constitute persecution the harm must rise above mere harassment
B: holding that the harm must rise above mere harassment
C: holding that persecution must rise above unpleasantness harassment and even basic suffering
D: holding that the harm must be sufficiently severe rising above mere harassment
D.