system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: err in determining that Huang failed to meet her burden in establishing her eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT relief. With respect to Huang’s claim based on her religion, the agency reasonably found that she had not shown a likelihood of future persecution or torture based on her religious activities in China. The agency reasonably deemed “speculative” Huang’s assertions that if she were returned to China; (a) she would continue to practice her religion (a religion she had only been practicing since her arrival in this country);(b) she would do so by joining an underground church, and (c) she would practice her religion in a manner that would attract the government’s attention and subject her to persecution. See Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 142 (2d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted); Jian Xing Options: A. holding it is the relators burden to provide this court with a sufficient record to establish his or her right to mandamus relief B. holding that slusa preempts claims which allege a material misrepresentation or omission in connection with the purchase or sale of securities whether or not that allegation is an element of or otherwise necessary to the putative state claim C. holding that a prisoner cannot establish his or her standing to prospectively challenge the validity of a facilitys disciplinary procedures simply by referring to his or her status as an individual incarcerated in that facility D. holding that an employees inadvertence ordinary negli genee poor judgment or inattention does not constitute misconducttherefore we conclude further findings are required regarding claimants mens rea at the time of the incidents that gave rise to her discharge from employmentvil violation of company rulewe reject employers argument that disqualification is appropriate under section 8781085evii crs2009 that seetion permits disqualification as relevant here if there is evidence that claimant engaged in theviolation of a statute or of a company rule which resulted or could have resulted in serious damage to the employers property or interests or could have endangered the life of the worker or other persons such as mistreatment of patients in a hospital or nursing home serving liquor to minors selling prescription items without prescriptions from licensed doctors immoral conduct which has an effect on workers job status divulging of confidential information which resulted or could have resulted in damage to the employers interests failure to observe conspicuously posted safety rules intentional falsification of expense accounts inventories or other reeords or reports whether or not substantial harm or injury was incurred or removal or attempted removal of employers property from the premises of the employer without proper authorityhere there is no evidence in the record that claimants actions resulted or could have resulted in serious damage to the employers property or interests or could have endangered the life of the worker or other personsthe panels order is set aside and the case is remanded to the panel with instructions to remand the case to the hearing officer on remand the hearing officer shall determine based on the evidence in the record whether claimant had a good faith but mistaken belief the toilet paper remnants she took had been discarded or abandoned by employer if so the hearing officer shall award her benefits if the hearing officer determines that claimant not only acted volitionally but also had the requisite knowledge and intent to deprive her employer of its property at the time of the actions alleged in this case she is not entitled to benefitsjudge hawthorne and judge terry concursitting by assignment of the chief justice under provisions of colo const art vi 53 E. holding that to establish asylum eligibility an applicant must establish that his or her putative persecutor is or could become aware of the applicants possession of the disfavored belief or characteristic

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that to establish asylum eligibility an applicant must establish that his or her putative persecutor is or could become aware of the applicants possession of the disfavored belief or characteristic