Vera-Valera

ORDER

The petition for rehearing is granted. The attached opinions are ordered filed. The opinions filed September 3, 1997, are withdrawn.

OPINION

In our original opinion, we held that there was no compelling evidence to overturn the BIA’s finding that petitioner failed to show that he was persecuted on account of an actual or imputed political opinion. See 123 F.3d 1302 , 1304 (9th Cir.1997). On review of the petition for rehearing and the response, and further review of the record, we conclude that that holding was in error.

Ernesto Antonio Vera-Valera, his wife, and two of them children, all nationals of Peru, came to the United States seeking asylum due to death threats from the Maoist guerilla group Sendero Luminoso.

In Lima in 1987, petitioner and his wife began selling juices and candies on the street for several hours each evening, after he worked his day job with the government in Lima, Peru. To avoid having to obtain an individual street vendor’s license, he joined a cooperative of street vendors.

In 1987-1988, petitioner first became a board member, then president of the cooperative. During his presidency, the goal of the cooperative was to build a permanent…

concurring:

I concur.

As I explained in my dissent to the earlier opinion now withdrawn, see Vera-Valera v. INS, 123 F.3d 1302 , 1304-06 (9th Cir.1997), I would not reach the issue of imputed opinion, because in my reading, the record establishes that Mr. Vera-Valera had an actual political opinion for which he was persecuted by Shining Path. He testified that he had “more capitalist views” than Shining Path did, and that the people in Shining Path “were opposed” to his capitalist views. They called him a “capitalist bureaucrat,” thereby correctly characterizing his politics and his day job. Shining Path told him that they were going to “cut off your ideas.” In the context of this death threat, the word “ideas” refers to Mr. Vera-Valera’s actual political opinion.