Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that Qiu failed to demonstrate his eligibility for withholding of removal to the extent his claim was based on his ex-wife’s forced abortion. See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 306 (2d Cir.2007) (en banc) (providing that any alleged persecution must be “personally experienced” if it is to form the basis of relief). Qiu has not alleged that he engaged in any form of resistance that would render him eligible for relief. See Matter of S-L-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 1, 10 (BIA 2006). Nor did the agency err by concluding that because Qiu is unmarried, any claim that he would face future persecution on account of possible future violations of the family planning policy would be too speculative to merit relief. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) . B. Falun Gong The agency also reasonably
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in the absence of solid support in the record for an applicants assertion that she would be persecuted the bia did not err in denying asylum because her fear was speculative at best
B. holding that absent solid support in the record for the petitioners assertion that he would be subjected to persecution his fear was speculative at best
C. holding that in the absence of solid support in the record for an applicants assertion that he will be persecuted his fear is speculative at best
D. holding that a fear of future persecution is not objectively reasonable if it lacks solid support in the record and is merely speculative at best
E. holding that absent solid support in the record that a fear is objectively reasonable a claim of future persecution is speculative at best
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.