With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Jorge Ildefonso Chavez-Huaman, a native and citizen of Peru, 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 Chavez-Huaman’s motion to reopen because nothing in the 2004 State Department Country Report he submitted shows a material change of circumstances in Peru with regard to the Shining Path. Cf. Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. ** This

A: holding that general crime conditions are not a stated ground for a wellfounded fear of future persecution
B: holding that asylum may be denied to an applicant who has otherwise demonstrated a wellfounded fear of future persecution if the evidence shows that internal relocation is a reasonable option in all the circumstances
C: 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
D: holding that such a report provided substantial evidence to support the conclusion that petitioner failed to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of future persecution
C.