Opinion ID: 3014110
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Political Opinion and Religion

Text: Patel claims that substantial evidence in the record contradicts the Board’s finding that she failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her political opinion or religion. She claims that Muslim extremists mistakenly believed she was involved in the destruction of the Babri Mosjid mosque, and as a result they allegedly threw stones at and sprayed kerosene on her house and attacked her and her husband as they walked close to a mosque. She also maintains the Baj Rang Dal party harassed her after she switched to the Janata Dal political party, although she provides no specific instances of harassment. Finally, Patel maintains the Baj Rang Dal party and Muslim extremists will persecute her if she returns to India. As the Board correctly concluded, the isolated incidents of harassment cited by Patel do not rise to the level of persecution as contemplated in 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13(a) and (b). Furthermore, Patel has presented no evidence to substantiate her fears of further persecution upon her return to India. Patel concedes that any harassment by the Baj Rang Dal party diminished after she joined the BJP. Since Hindus comprise eighty percent of India’s population, Patel could relocate to an area where she would not encounter persecution from Muslims, a solution suggested in the U.S. State Department’s Country Profile on India. Substantial evidence in the record supports the Board’s decision. 5