Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
... the school’s administration refused to take action”; (4) “[h]e continued to experience discrimination following his graduation from college”; and (5) “he was denied employment on account of his religious affiliation.” Based on these incidents, the BIA found that Soccer failed to demonstrate past persecution because the “discrimination” he faced “in his school, neighborhood, and employment opportunities concerned harassment from private individuals” and because it did not “rise to the level of persecution.” Admittedly, the BIA did not attempt to reconcile its conclusion that the school-related conduct was carried out by “private individuals” with the uncertainty about whether Soccer attended private or government schools. Cf. Sotelo-Aquije v. Slattery, 17 F.3d 33, 37 (2d Cir.1994) . But regardless of whether Soccer’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that delays by the government in processing an immigration application did not qualify as affirmative misconduct
B. holding that when the government takes property by flooding it the government is also liable for the cost of protective measures by landowners in preventing erosion caused by raised water levels
C. holding that an applicants wealth in the absence of evidence to suggest other motivations will not support a finding of persecution within the meaning of the immigration and nationality act
D. holding that in order to demonstrate a pattern and practice of persecution against a particular group petitioner must demonstrate that persecution is systemic pervasive or organized and is committed by the government or forces the government is either unable or unwilling to control
E. holding that the immigration and nationality act protects against persecution not only by government forces but also by nongovernmental groups that the government cannot control
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.