Opinion ID: 540898
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Political Asylum: 8 U.S.C. Secs. 1101(a)(42)(A), 1158(a)

Text: 21 To qualify for political asylum the alien must show that his fear is genuine, Hernandez-Ortiz v. INS, 777 F.2d 509, 513 (9th Cir.1985), and, by credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record, Diaz-Escobar v. INS, 782 F.2d 1488, 1492 (9th Cir.1986), that persecution is a reasonable possibility, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 440, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 1217, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987), quoting INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 425, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 2498, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984). Past persecution alone may satisfy the requirement. See generally Desir v. Ilchert, 840 F.2d 723, 729 (9th Cir.1988). 22 The well-founded fear standard is easier to satisfy than the clear probability standard required for withholding deportation, see Cardoza-Fonseca v. INS, 480 U.S. 421, 449-50, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 1222-23, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987), which Mendoza has satisfied. Thus Mendoza is eligible for asylum.CONCLUSION 23 Mendoza's testimony is presumed credible and evidenced a direct, specific, individual threat. There is insufficient evidence to deny Mendoza's requests. We reverse the BIA's denial of Mendoza's request for withholding of deportation and his request for political asylum. Since asylum is at the discretion of the Attorney General, that portion of the case is remanded for the exercise of that discretion. 24 REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.