Which standard is used to determine the likelihood of future persecution for an asylum applicant?

The reasonable possibility standard is the correct choice because it reflects the established legal threshold for determining the likelihood of future persecution in the context of asylum claims. This standard requires that an applicant demonstrate a reasonable possibility—rather than a probability—of persecution if they were to return to their home country.

In practical terms, this means that the applicant does not need to prove that it is more likely than not that they will face persecution. Instead, they must provide credible evidence that supports the likelihood of experiencing serious harm due to factors such as their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The emphasis on "reasonable possibility" allows for a broader assessment of an applicant's situation, taking into account their personal experiences and the conditions in their home country.

Other options, such as the probability of more than 50%, would impose a stricter requirement that does not align with asylum law, which is designed to protect individuals who face well-founded fears of persecution. Statistical analysis of risks and majority opinion on safety are not relevant legal standards in this context, as asylum determinations are based on individual circumstances and the credibility of the applicant's claims, rather than general statistical data or consensus.