With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as a whole.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (quotation marks omitted). First, with regard to Petitioners’ asylum claims, the record does not compel us to disagree with the BIA’s decision. See Halaim v. INS, 358 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.2004). In Halaim, we were not compelled to find past persecution where the petitioners were subjected to derogatory comments and police harassment based on their status as Pentecostal Christians in the Ukraine. Id. The instant case is closely analogous, and we reach the same result. Here, as in Halaim, the determination that “Petitioners did not suffer past persecution (as distinct from discrimination) is supported by substantial evidence.” Id. See also Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Because Petitioners did not establish that

A: holding that two isolated criminal acts perpetrated by unknown assailants against ethnic chinese indonesians which resulted only in the theft of some personal property and a minor injury is not sufficiently severe to be considered persecution
B: holding that isolated physical violence and unfulfilled threats perpetrated by serbian citizens against an ethnic albanian in kosovo constituted harassment not persecution
C: holding that incidents of harassment and unfulfilled threats of injury are not persecution absent physical harm
D: holding that harassment threats and one beating did not constitute persecution
B.