With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". To establish eligibility for asylum, Kruja was required to demonstrate either a well-founded fear of future persecution in Albania or past persecution giving rise to a rebuttable presumption of such a well-founded fear. See Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 140, 148 (2d Cir.2003). Lack of eligibility for asylum would automatically mean that Kruja was not entitled to withholding. See id. To establish eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture, Kruja was required to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured on her return to Albania. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). We evidence that she is likely to be tortured in Albania, and the background materials alone do not compel a conclusion that torture is more likely than not. Cf. Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 184-85 (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for

A: holding that the agency may not deny a cat claim solely on the basis of adverse credibility finding made in the asylum context where the cat claim did not turn upon credibility
B: holding it improper to deny cat relief based on adverse credibility finding where objective documentary evidence establishes likelihood of torture
C: holding that the agency may not deny a cat claim solely on the basis of an adverse credibility finding made in the asylum context where the cat claim did not turn upon credibility
D: holding that a negative credibility finding for the purposes of an asylum claim does not preclude relief under cat where documented country conditions corroborate a claim of torture
B.