Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
phone calls, and his car was stolen, but then returned by the police without any payment to the FARC. Such threats and acts of intimidation, without any significant harm, do not rise to the level of past persecution. See id. Turning to future persecution, we cannot say that the record compels the finding that Alzate will more likely than not be subjected to persecution upon removal. See Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022, 1029 (11th Cir.2004) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. --, 125 S.Ct. 2245, 161 L.Ed.2d 1063 (2005). The BIA concluded that Alzate’s fear was not objectively reasonable. As the BIA noted, despite Alzate’s subjective fear of the FARC, Alzate was able to return to Colombia several times without suffering any harm. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816-17 (9th Cir.2001) . During one of his return visits, Alzate made
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that documentary evidence pertaining to the asylum applicant himself and to the events in which he was involved  can independently establish facts essential to  an asylum claim
B. holding that an asylum applicant must make a showing of a particularized threat of persecution
C. holding that an applicants claim of asylum is weakened even undercut when the applicant has returned to the country without incident
D. holding that an asylum applicants submission of false documents without an adequate explanation supported adverse credibility findings
E. holding that the agency need not analyze separately a withholding of removal claim based on the same facts as an applicants asylum claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.