Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“I never thought of that. I can ask them to come.” That Lu was insufficiently prescient about the type of additional corroborating evidence the IJ would require fails to justify an inference that his roommates would have testified unfavorably or that Lu is not currently practicing Falun Gong, especially given that he offered to have them come testify as soon as the government attorney brought it up. Because none of the BIA’s proffered grounds supports its adverse credibility determination, we must take Lu’s testimony at face value. Kaur, 379 F.3d at 890. Lu testified that, as a direct result of his Falun Gong practice, he was detained, beaten, electrically shocked, dragged into a courtyard, and tied to a tree for three hours. See Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 713, 720-21 (9th Cir.2004) . Because the BIA never reached the issue, we
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a showing of past persecution creates a rebuttable presumption of future persecution
B. holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution
C. holding that retaliation for opposition to government corruption can constitute persecution on account of a political opinion
D. holding that persecution was on account of political opinion because petitioners prosecutorial investigation into acts of political corruption was by its very nature political
E. holding that the persecution of falun gong practitioners constitutes persecution both on the basis of spiritual and religious belief and on the basis of political opinion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.