Opinion ID: 753899
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Asylum Claim--Past Persecution

Text: 4 Morales-Rodriquez was required to demonstrate the objective fact of past persecution. Because the immigration judge (IJ) found her credible, a finding adopted by the BIA, Morales-Rodriquez's assertions of fact are assumed accurate. Notwithstanding this, the IJ and BIA concluded Morales-Rodriquez did not connect the several incidents before and after the politically motivated office visit to the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC), or to one another. Without some connection to the FARC, even the shooting did not amount to persecution on account of a protected classification set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). 5 An inference connecting the four incidents, coming, as they did, in quick succession, would not be unreasonable. In such a case, their cumulative effect could serve as the basis for a claim of persecution. See Surita v. INS, 95 F.3d 814, 819 (9th Cir.1996) (the cumulative effect of several incidents may constitute persecution). However, the evidence set out by Morales-Rodriquez does not compel[ ] the conclusion that they were connected. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). The inference was therefore one for the BIA to accept or reject. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Morales-Rodriquez did not demonstrate past persecution. 6