Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
must show that he is a ‘refugee’ within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, i.e., that he has suffered past persecution on account of ‘race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,’ or that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on these grounds.” Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 140, 148 (2d Cir.2003) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)). Once an asylum applicant has established eligibility for asylum, the decision whether to grant asylum rests with the discretion of the Attorney General, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1), and is generally not reviewable unless “manifestly contrary to law and an abuse of discretion,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D); see also Melendez v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 926 F.2d 211, 216-18 (2d Cir.1991) . The BIA originally held that application of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error
B. holding that while bias findings of fact informing decision whether applicant is eligible for asylum are reviewed for substantial evidence ultimate discretionary determination whether to grant asylum is reviewed for abuse of discretion
C. holding that a district courts decision on whether to hold a daubert hearing is reviewed only for abuse of discretion
D. recognizing that the decision of whether to give a jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion
E. holding that the imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.