Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the Convention, finding that Li had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. We hold that the evidence in the record is insufficient to compel a finding that Li established a well-founded fear of persecution. The single threat to handcuff Li does not constitute past persecution. Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000) (defining persecution as an “extreme concept” that includes the “infliction of suffering or harm” (citations omitted)). Nor does the combination of the threat, the experience of his father’s friend, and the State Department Profile establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. Arrest alone, even on account of a protected category, does not constitute persecution. Al-Saher v. INS, 268 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) . While the State Department Profile does
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that beatings vandalism threats and humiliation in the aggregate  rise to the level of persecution as contemplated by the act
B. holding that imputed political opinion is a protected ground
C. holding that forced recruitment does not amount to persecution without a showing that it was on account of petitioners political opinion
D. holding that the record did not compel a finding of persecution where an alien was detained for five or six days
E. holding that detention of five or six days on account of imputed political opinion without beatings tortures or threats did not rise to the level of persecution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.