With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Morales v. U.S. Attorney General, 488 F.3d 884, 890 (11th Cir.2007). In the present case, the BIA affirmed and adopted the IJ’s opinion, and therefore we will review the IJ’s opinion. An alien is entitled to withholding of removal under the INA if she can show that her life or freedom would be threatened on account of, inter alia, her race or religion. INA § 241(b)(3)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). For withholding of removal, the applicant has the burden of showing that it is “more likely than not” she will be persecuted or tortured upon return to her country. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 12 hysically harmed. See AR at 110. Thus, she was unable to establish past persecution and therefore unable to establish a rebuttable presumption of future persecution. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231 (<HOLDING>). She also failed to adduce evidence that would

A: 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
B: holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution
C: holding that a showing of past persecution creates a rebuttable presumption of future persecution
D: holding that the asylum standard for past persecution or wellfounded fear of future persecution is lower than the clear probability standard to show eligibility for withholding of removal
C.