Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
guerillas. Review of the record, however, shows that claim was sufficiently presented to the BIA. Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 321-22 (5th Cir.2009). The BIA’s decision is reviewed for substantial evidence. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997); Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under this standard, the IA 2007) (finding proposed group of wealthy Guatemalans “not so readily ‘identifiable’ or sufficiently defined as to meet the requirements of a particular social group within the meaning of the refugee definition”) (emphasis in original). Insofar as Segovia asserts he is entitled to relief because political unrest makes it unsafe for him to return to El Salvador, his claim is similarly unavailing. Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 190 (5th Cir.2004) . DENIED. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution
B. holding applicants fear of persecution cannot be based solely on general violence and civil disorder
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 general crime conditions are not a stated ground for a wellfounded fear of future persecution
E. holding that to qualify for asylum the fear of future persecution must be based on reasonably specific information showing a real threat to individual persecution not mere assertions of fear of possible persecution or speculative conclusions quoting mapouya 487 f3d at 412
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.