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

Heading: Asylum and Withholding of Deportation Claims

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
7 Morales-Rodriquez also failed to establish eligibility based on a well-founded fear of persecution. A well-founded fear has both a subjective and an objective component. See Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 338 (9th Cir.1995). Petitioner's credible testimony that she genuinely feared persecution satisfies the subjective component. See Acewicz v. INS, 984 F.2d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir.1993). 8 To satisfy the objective component, an alien must show credible, direct, and specific evidence of facts supporting a reasonable fear of persecution. Prasad, 47 F.3d at 338 (quoting Shirazi-Parsa v. INS, 14 F.3d 1424, 1427 (9th Cir.1994)). In concluding Morales-Rodriquez could not show that an objectively reasonable person would fear persecution, the BIA considered the limited interest the FARC had in Morales-Rodriquez, even on her reading of the facts; her failure to claim asylum promptly; the lack of harm to her family since 1989; and evidence that Morales-Rodriquez had not reported the incidents to the authorities. Cumulatively, this constituted substantial evidence.
9 Since Morales-Rodriquez did not meet the burden of proof to establish her asylum claim, she did not meet the higher, clear probability standard to establish her claim for withholding of deportation. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1428-29 (9th Cir.1995).