With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". home was destroyed; (2) his wife was followed by a pickup truck on her way home; (3) he received anonymous telephone threats; (4) his car window was shattered by a stone thrown by motorists; and (5) he received two notices to appear from the Peruvian judiciary. However, the IJ properly found that, even when considering the cumulative effect of all the incidents, the petitioners failed to demonstrate either past persecution or the likelihood of future persecution on account of Cordero’s political beliefs because: (1) none of the alleged incidents amounted to persecution; and (2) most incidents could have been caused by motives other than targeting his political beliefs. Indeed, the events above do not rise to the extreme level of past persecution. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1231 (<HOLDING>). Similar to the petitioner in Sepulveda,

A: holding that incidents of harassment and unfulfilled threats of injury are not persecution absent physical harm
B: holding that a few isolated incidents of harassment and intimidation including menacing telephone calls and a bomb that exploded at the petitioners workplace do not amount to persecution
C: holding that to meet his burden the plaintiff must show more than a few isolated incidents and that evidence solely of sporadic discrimination does not suffice
D: holding that isolated criminal attacks do not constitute persecution
B.