Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the guerillas knocked on the door of the house that Mendez was staying in. He escaped out a back window and ran away. As he ran, they shot him. Fortunately, his wound was a nonfatal one to his left arm. Mendez fled El Salvador for the United States to avoid being killed. 2. Despite concluding that Mendez was credible and had “articulated a social group which is visible within Salvadoran society as affiliation with the army during the civil war period,” the Board concluded that Mendez’s description of these events were “too vague” to establish that he was “individually targeted.” This conclusion is not backed by “substantial evidence,” because no reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Mendez was not individually targeted. Ruano v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1155, 1159-61 (9th Cir. 2002) (<HOLDING>). A reasonable fact-finder would have to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a plaintiff who did not show that he was paid at a lower rate than similarly situated employees could not survive summary judgment (B) holding that potential class members are similarly situated to the named plaintiffs if they are similarly situated with respect to their job requirements and pay provisions (C) holding that fourth element of a prima facie case is satisfied when the employees who were more favorably treated were situated similarly to the plaintiff (D) holding that a similarly situated petitioner was perse cuted when he was repeatedly threatened with death  and hunted down albeit unsuccessfully by men with pistols who were out to harm him (E) holding that employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated
Output (English): holding that employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated