Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
conclude” that the IJ and the BIA ruled erroneously. See INA § 242(b)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). As Thap has not established that there was any past persecution, there is no presumption that he would be subject to persecution upon returning to Cambodia such that the burden of rebutting that presumption would shift to the government. Therefore, the court finds that Thap cannot establish a clear probability of persecution in Cambodia on the basis of any past persecution to which Thap or his family were subject. We next examine whether Thap can prove that there is a future threat of persecution based on a protected ground should he return to Cambodia. Almuhtaseb, 453 F.3d at 750 (citations omitted); Knezevic v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir.2004) ; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b). Again, Thap has not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the asylum standard for past persecution or wellfounded fear of future persecution is lower than the clear probability standard to show eligibility for withholding of removal
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 a wellfounded fear requires petitioner to show more than a generalized or random possibility of persecution
D. holding that general crime conditions are not a stated ground for a wellfounded fear of future persecution
E. holding that such a report provided substantial evidence to support the conclusion that petitioner failed to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of future persecution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.