Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 7 . 502 U.S. 478, 482-83, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). 8 . See Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994) (“Jukic has failed to demonstrate that he will be persecuted by either people based on his political opinion or social group, ‘rather than because of his refusal to fight with them.' ”). 9 . See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483, 112 S.Ct. 812. Petitioners must provide "some evidence of ... [motive], direct or circumstantial.” Id. 10 . See also Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994) (Under the substantial evidence standard, "the alien must show that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it”). 11 . Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483, 112 S.Ct. 812. 12 . Id. at 480, 112 S.Ct. 812. 13 . See id. at 483, 112 S.Ct. 812 (<HOLDING>). 14 . Petitioners argued in their appeal to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence which suggests but does not prove a discriminatory motive is circumstantial evidence by definition (B) holding that since the statute makes motive critical a petitioner must provide some evidence of it direct or circumstantial (C) holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent (D) holding circumstantial evidence has equivalent standing to direct evidence in criminal prosecution (E) holding that the applicant must provide some evidence direct or circumstantial that the persecutor was or would be motivated to persecute him because of a protected ground
Output (English): holding circumstantial evidence has equivalent standing to direct evidence in criminal prosecution