Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Aristides Omar Mantilla petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that Mantilla failed to establish eligibility for asylum. Mantilla did not establish a connection between threats made against his family and one of the five statutory grounds for asylum. See Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1028-30 (9th Cir.2000) . Mantilla also has presented no evidence that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that persecution on account of a protected category must be because of that category
B. holding that persecution based on being a current member of the military national police force or us embassy guard does not qualify as persecution on a protected ground
C. holding that persecution by militants for purpose of recruitment does not establish a nexus to a protected ground
D. holding that dangers arising from police work do not support a claim of persecution on account of a protected ground
E. holding that petitioners who apply for withholding of removal must establish that a statutorily protected ground was a reason for their persecution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.