With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ORDER Petitioner Ming Zhang Xu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a March 4, 2010, decision of the BIA affirming the April 16, 2008, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Paul A. DeFonzo, denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ming Zhang Xu, No. A094 048 617 (B.I.A. Mar. 4, 2010), aff'g No. A094 048 617 (Immig.Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 16, 2008). We assume 6) (<HOLDING>); see also Steevenez v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 114,

A: recognizing that withholding of removal claims must fail if petitioner is unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim and the claims are based on the same factual predicate
B: holding that when the asylum withholding of removal and cat claims are based on the same factual predicate a credibility ruling necessarily forecloses relief in each
C: recognizing that withholding of removal and cat claims necessarily fail if the applicant is unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim and the factual predicate for the claims is the same
D: holding that where a petitioner fails to establish a claim for asylum on the merits his claims for withholding of removal under the ina and cat also necessarily fail
B.