Mendoza

MEMORANDUM **

Cristobal Mendoza petitions for review of the BIA’s order dismissing his appeal from an IJ’s order denying his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. The facts and prior proceedings are known to the parties; they are not restated herein except as necessary.

I

Mendoza argues that he is entitled to asylum because of a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his past persecution on account of an imputed political opinion. In such a case, an asylum applicant must show that (1) he was a victim of persecution, (2) he holds a political opinion or has had one imputed to him, (3) his political opinion was known to or imputed by his persecutors, and (4) the persecution was on account of his actual or imputed political opinion. See Agbuya v. INS, 241 F.3d 1224, 1228-29 (9th Cir.2001).

We have defined persecution as “the infliction of suffering or harm upon those who differ (in race, religion, or political opinion) in a way regarded as offensive.” Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting Desir v. Ilchert, 840 F.2d 723, 726-27 (9th Cir.1988)). As evidence of his past persecution, Mendoza offers his having been shot at by members of a…

dissenting.

I would grant the petition for review and remand for reconsideration by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Mendoza established the requisite past persecution based on imputed political opinion and is therefore entitled to a presumption of well-founded fear of future persecution. Del Carmen Molina v. INS, 170 F.3d 1247, 1249 (9th Cir.1999); Ernesto Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 658-60 (9th Cir.2000).