With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". we dismiss Silalahi’s asylum claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 over the remaining claims. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s decision to deny withholding of removal, Hakeem, 273 F.3d at 816, and relief under CAT, Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir.2003). Substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal because Silalahi failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be subject to persecution if removed to Indonesia. See Hakeem, 273 F.3d at 816-17. The event to which Silalahi testified does not rise to the extreme level of harm and suffering that constitutes persecution and does not compel a finding of eligibility for withholding of removal. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Substantial evidence supports the denial of

A: holding that mere insults indignities and threats are not extreme and outrageous acts
B: holding that a minor beating even in conjunction with threats did not compel a finding of persecution
C: holding that harassment threats and one beating did not constitute persecution
D: holding that insults harassment death threats and a beating did not compel eligibility for withholding of removal
D.