With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen so he could apply for asylum based on changed circumstances. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen because the 2004 State Department Country Report he submitted does not demonstrate a material change of circumstances in India with regard to the Indian police’s treatment of suspected terrorists and Sikh separatists. Cf. Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. ** This

A: holding the critical question is  whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a wellfounded fear of future persecution
B: holding that general crime conditions are not a stated ground for a wellfounded fear of future persecution
C: holding that such a report provided substantial evidence to support the conclusion that petitioner failed to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of future persecution
D: 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
A.