With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, inter alia, a “fundamental change in circumstances such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution in the applicant’s country of nationality” or the reasonable possibility of internal relocation within the country of removal. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)-(ii), 1208.16(b)(l)(i)-(ii). The BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s finding that assuming, arguendo, that petitioners had suffered past persecution, they no longer had a well-founded fear of future persecution because conditions in El Salvador had fundamentally changed. The agency reasonably found that the government had met its burden of establishing a fundamental change in circumstances. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 314 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). A U.S. Department of State report in the

A: recognizing that conditions in el salvador have materially changed and that the increase in general criminal violence does not lend support to an asylum claim
B: holding that 8 cfr  10032c3ii applies to changed country conditions in the country of origin or deportation and not changed personal circumstances in the united states
C: holding that the bia did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reopen supported by allegedly unavailable evidence regarding changed country conditions where there had been a previous adverse credibility finding in the underlying asylum hearing
D: holding that in the asylum context the bia must provide an individualized analysis of how changed conditions will affect the specific petitioners situation citation and internal quotation marks omitted
A.