Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
unauthenticated, and failed to identify the authors. Id. Those weaknesses do not exist in Zhang’s affidavits. Nevertheless, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to fully credit this evidence. Chen v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 212, 218 (3d Cir.2005) (noting that only corroboration was a letter from a family member who did not witness incident and who was not subject to cross examination). Moreover, even if the affidavits could be credited, they are insufficient to establish changed country conditions in China. The affidavits’ largely anecdotal descriptions of religious persecution do not demonstrate that conditions had worsened in China for Christians since the time of Zhang’s merits hearing in 2001. See Shardar v. Att’y Gen., 503 F.3d 308, 316 (3d Cir.2007) . In addition, we agree that the documentary
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an asylum applicant must make a showing of a particularized threat of persecution
B. 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
C. holding that to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution an applicant must establish that he would be singled out for persecution or that there was a pattern or practice of persecution of similarlysituated individuals
D. holding that to establish asylum eligibility based on future persecution an applicant must show that he or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable
E. holding that alien must show that he faces a particularized threat of persecution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.