Opinion ID: 771792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: 13 The Attorney General may, in her discretion, grant asylum to an applicant determined to be a refugee, within the meaning of INA 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. S 1101(a)(42)(A). An alien establishes refugee status if he is unable or unwilling to return to his country of nationality or residence either because (1) he was persecuted in the past, or (2) he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. INA 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A); see INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 423 (1987); Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 1998). In this case, Molina argues that he is eligible for asylum because he was persecuted on account of an imputed political opinion. 14 The Attorney General must withhold deportation of any asylum applicant who establishes a clear probability of persecution, which is a stricter standard than the well-founded fear standard for asylum. INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984). An alien who fails to establish eligibility for asylum necessarily fails to establish eligibility for withholding of deportation. Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1999). The applicant has the burden of proving his eligibility with credible, direct, and specific evidence. Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 338 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Shirazi-Parsa v. INS, 14 F.3d 1424, 1427 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc)). 15 In Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482 (9th Cir. 1997), we held that there are three ways that an applicant can establish a political opinion claim. See id. at 1488-90. An applicant can show: (1) affirmative political beliefs;  (2) political neutrality in an environment in which political neutrality is fraught with hazard, from governmental or uncontrolled anti governmental forces; or (3) an imputed political opinion. Id. at 1488-89. The BIA concluded that Molina's attackers were [not] in any way motivated by the respondent's political opinion or an opinion they imputed to him. 16 There is no evidence in the record, nor does Molina assert, that he was persecuted on account of his affirmative political beliefs. Rather, Molina argues that his report of the rape was construed by Salazar and his supporters as an act against the ARENA party, and that he was therefore persecuted on account of an imputed political opinion. We agree with the BIA, however, that Molina was not persecuted on account of any political opinion, actual or imputed. 17 An imputed political opinion is a political opinion attributed to the applicant by his persecutors. Sangha, 103 F.3d at 1489. Under this analysis, the focus of inquiry turns away from the views of the victim to the views of the persecutor, and the court examines the political views the persecutor rightly or in error attributes to his victims.  Id. In order to establish an imputed political opinion, the applicant must show that his persecutors actually imputed a political opinion to him. Id. 18 Molina has not presented any evidence that supports, much less compels, a conclusion that his persecutors attributed a political opinion to him. Rather, as the BIA stated, the evidence suggests that he fears harm because of a personal matter between him and Carmen Salazar. There is no evidence that Molina's attackers thought that he was aligned with any opposition to the ARENA party. See, e.g., CordonGarcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 985, 992 (9th Cir. 2000) (Petitioner's `presumed affiliation' with the Guatemalan government -an entity the guerrillas oppose -is the functional equivalent of a conclusion that she holds a political opinion opposite to that of the guerrillas, whether or not she actually holds such an opinion.); Sangha, 103 F.3d at 1489 (noting that an imputed political opinion may be found where one party to a conflict insists to the victim that the victim is aligned with the other side, citing, inter alia, Singh v. Ilchert, 63 F.3d 1501, 1509 (9th Cir. 1995)). Molina does not assert that he ever expressed views that might have been construed as political opposition to [ARENA]'s goals. Vera-Valera v. INS, 147 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir. 1998). Nor is Molina a member of a large, politically active family many of whom have already been persecuted for their political beliefs. Sangha, 103 F.3d at 1489 (citing Ramirez Rivas v. INS, 899 F.2d 864, 865-66 (9th Cir. 1990)). 19 This case is unlike Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2000), in which the only reason for the murder of the petitioner's aunt was her murdered husband's political activities and her relationship to him. Id. at 660-61. In Navas, the logical inference to be drawn from the circumstances was that the aunt was murdered because her persecutors presumed sympathy for the [opposing] position on her part.  Id. at 661. By contrast, the evidence before us indicates that the disappearance of Molina's aunt was due solely to her report of the rape by Salazar. There is no evidence that Salazar's supporters presumed sympathy on her part or Molina's part for an opposing political view. The mere fact that Salazar was a politician does not compel a conclusion that Molina was persecuted on account of any political opinion his persecutors imputed to him. Salazar's part-time profession as a politician is merely incidental. Even if Salazar had a personal vendetta against Molina, [p]urely personal retribution is, of course, not persecution on account of political opinion. Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177, 1181 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000). We therefore hold that Molina has failed to establish his eligibility for asylum because he has not shown that he was persecuted on account of imputed political opinion. 20 Because Molina has not met the lesser burden of establishing his eligibility for asylum, he necessarily has failed to meet the more stringent clear probability burden required for withholding of deportation. Singh-Kaur, 183 F.3d at 1149. 21 The petition for review is DENIED.