Legal advocate: The Métis people of Canada are of First Nations and Eu

Lot of discussion on the question.

My two cents on it. I did home on to the H part pretty straight forward but took more than one minute to analyse the last two options for N.

Let us see what all is given as must have 
1.  an individual must self-identify as Métis and must not have self-identified only recently in order to receive these rights
2. The individual must also have Métis ancestry
3. The individual must be accepted as Métis by a modern Métis community, a case that is shown only by long-standing participation in the community’s cultural or political activities.

Have: H is clearly one of the first three options

A. Self-identifies as Métis due to long-standing Métis ancestry
Acceptance by modern Meitis community is a very important aspect and is missed out in this option. 

B. Self-identifies as Métis due to long-standing participation in Métis political activities
This shows that modern Metis communty would accept the individual as Meti. Although it misses out directly on point of Metis ancestary, the long standing participation in Metis political activities could be stretched to ancestary. 
Whatever be the way, the options seems to be more apt for must have than A, and although it may not be covering each point very clearly.

C. Has recent ancestry that is Métis and participates in Métis political activities
The word recent makes the option fit to be discarded.


Not Have: N is, therefore, restricted to one of the last two options.

D. Has recent ancestry that is not Métis
Clearly this is a No go situation from the very look. The person fitting in the above category would never be eligible to Metis rights. 
This could be a straight answer unless we start diving deep in it, a situation that I too found myself in initially. 
The above could translate into
(i) Has recent ancestary that is Metis, something that will again not fit in.
(ii) Has long-standing ancestary that is not Metis, again something that will not fit in.
(iii) Has long standing ancestary that is Metis, a required situation.
But, do we really require to dive so deep into analysing a situation, which otherwise just warrants a Yes have or No have answer.
A straightway answer should have been:  no, a person with recent ancestry that is not Métis is not eligible for rights.

E. Has never participated in Métis political activities
­We are looking for long-standing participation in the community’s cultural or political activities.
The answer would be: Ok, he could have participated in community's cultural activities.
The reason for this not be considered for N is word or.   

Answer: B and D