Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
because of an imputed political opinion. Singh testified that the Indian police were interested in him because of his relationship to Khan, his domestic servant. An “applicant’s association with, or relationship to, people who are known to hold a particular political opinion” may serve as indirect evidence of an imputed political opinion. Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1032 (quoting Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 658 (9th Cir.2000)) (internal quotation mark omitted). That appears to be precisely the case here. The Punjabi police asserted that Singh was a “traitor” based solely on his association with Khan, a reason we have repeatedly held to support the conclusion that a political opinion has been imputed to the applicant. See, e.g., Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070-72 (9th Cir.2008) . The police targeted Singh and imputed
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that fathers military service alone was neither political opinion nor sufficient to establish imputed political opinion
B. holding that persecutors statements indicating that they had chosen her because of her fathers relationship to the philippine government constituted persecution on account of an imputed political opinion
C. holding that imputed political opinion is a protected ground
D. holding that applicant failed to establish imputed political opinion where he presented no evidence that an antigovernmental guerilla group imputed his fathers political beliefs to him
E. holding that retaliation for opposition to government corruption can constitute persecution on account of a political opinion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.