With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir.2007); Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 198 n. 5 (2d Cir.2009). Contrary to Wu’s argument, the agency does not first need to identify the particular pieces of missing, relevant evidence, and show that this evidence was reasonably available to the applicant, before relying on a lack of corroboration to support an adverse credibility finding. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 341 (2d Cir.2006). Moreover, the agency did not err in declining to give significant weight to the statements Wu provided from his family and friends. See id. at 342 (the weight afforded to an applicant’s evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the agency). Given Wu’s inconsistencies, demeanor, and lack of corroboratio d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for

A: holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution
B: holding that to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution an applicant must establish that he would be singled out for persecution or that there was a pattern or practice of persecution of similarlysituated individuals
C: holding that absent past persecution an alien can demonstrate eligibility for asylum based on a wellfounded fear of future persecution by demonstrating that he or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable
D: holding that to establish asylum eligibility based on future persecution an applicant must show that he or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable
B.