With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ten to fifteen occasions from 1974 to 1976, the Guatemalan military threatened to “disappear” him, and that, in three incidents in 1989, the military ransacked his house, briefly restrained him, slapped him without causing pain or injury, and threatened him. Under this Circuit’s precedents, mistreatment of this nature and severity does not “compel the conclusion” of past persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.2006) (brief detention, interrogation, and beating that does not cause injury); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000) (unfulfilled threats); Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir.1995). Nor has Petitioner adduced any evidence that he faces an individualized risk of future persecution or torture. See Kotasz v. INS, 31 F.3d 847, 851-52 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the record does not compel the

A: holding that alien must show that he faces a particularized threat of persecution
B: holding that a plaintiff meets the injuryinfact requirement for standing if he faces a credible threat of harm and that harm is both real and immediate not conjectural or hypothetical
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 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
A.