TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
PROBLEM: The agency reasonably found that unfulfilled threats, which were the only individualized harm Yang alleged he had suffered, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Ci Pan v. United States Atty. General, 449 F.3d 408, 412-13 (2d Cir.2006). This is so, even when considered in conjunction with his father's alleged beating, because, as the IJ noted, Yang did not allege that this incident resulted in any injuries to his father or caused Yang any continuing harm. See Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 494 F.3d 296, 308 (2d Cir.2007) ("the statutory scheme unambiguously dictates that applicants can become candidates for asylum relief only based on persecution that they themselves have suffered or must suffer"); see also Tao Jiang v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 137, 141-42 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the agency did not err in finding
Holding statements: (A) holding that an asylum applicant cannot claim past persecution based solely on the harm that was inflicted on a family member on account of that family members political opinion or other protected characteristic (B) recognizing that an applicant may be able to demonstrate persecution based on persecution of family members where the applicant shares the characteristic that motivated persecutors to harm the family member was in the zone of risk when the family member was harmed and suffered some continuing hardship after the incident citing jorgetzoc v gonzales 435 f3d 146 150 2d cir2006 (C) holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution (D) recognizing that the harm suffered by family members in combination with other factors would presumably only be persecution where the applicant not only shares or is perceived to share the characteristic that motivated persecutors to harm the family members but was also within the zone of risk when the family member was harmed and suffered some continuing hardship after the incident (E) holding the wifes testimony that husbands release would cause psychological harm to other family members was insufficient to support commitment courts finding that husband would cause serious bodily harm to another person

SOLUTION: (D)

PROBLEM: Dubuque's "irrevocable" decision to relocate was not a vote to categorically refuse Dubuque's overtures, but a vote to insist on financial disclosure as a prelude to bargaining. The Board's finding that good-faith bargaining between Dubuque and the UFCW might not have been futile was substantially supported by the record. 3. Retroactivity Finally, Dubuque argues that the Board erred by "retroactively" employing its new test in this case. Again, we disagree. Our formulation of the standard for evaluating challenges to the retroactive application of a ruling from an agency adjudication has varied. Compare Retail, Wholesale & Dep't Store Union v. NLRB, 466 F.2d 380, 390 (D.C.Cir.1972) (applying a five-factor test) with Consolidated Freightways v. NLRB, 892 F.2d 1052, 1058 (D.C.Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted) with
Holding statements: (A) holding no retroactive application (B) recognizing a general principle that retroactive application of rules is permitted absent any manifest injustice (C) holding retroactive application (D) recognizing principle (E) holding that retroactive application of amendments will not result in manifest injustice

SOLUTION: (B)

PROBLEM: P.3d 516 (quoting State v. Reed, 2000 UT 68, 18, 8 P.3d 1025). Additionally, the prejudice must be "such that there is a reasonable likelihood the jury would have reached a more favorable result absent the comments." Reed, 2000 UT 68, 1 18, 8 P.3d 1025. Unlike the majority, however, I would hold that Defendant has satisfied his burden in meeting this two-prong test. 25 First, the prosecutor called the jurors' attention to matters not proper for their consideration. - During closing arguments, the prosecutor relied on information not admitted into evidence and implied both that Defendant had stolen software licenses and that Myers could not have legally consented to Defendant taking the computer because of that software. See generally State v. Kohl, 2000 UT 35, 23-24, 999 P.2d 7 (<HOLDING>). Further, the charge against the Defendant
Holding statements: (A) holding that district court had not abused discretion in denying rule 59 motion because no persuasive reason has been shown why this evidence could not have been presented during the trial nor does it appear that it would have altered the result (B) holding that it is inappropriate to make a claim to the jury during closing arguments when no evidence hals been presented during trial to support it (C) holding that to obtain the proper context of a challenged statement made during closing arguments the court must recount in its entirety the portion of the closing argument wherein those statements appear (D) holding that plaintiffs failure to object to the improper comments of defendant during closing arguments resulted in waiver of plaintiffs right to argue the issue on appeal because the trial court was not given an opportunity to rule on the issue (E) holding that this court has discretion to hear arguments presented to it in the first instance provided that it otherwise has jurisdiction over the claim

SOLUTION:
(B)