Shariff

I respectfully dissent. The evidence in this case does not compel a decision which is contrary to that of the BIA. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.1995). Petitioner’s relatives remain in Fiji and when Petitioner was questioned regarding her prospective return to Fiji, she initially expressed concern only about finding work and a place to live. She made no mention of safety concerns. The evidence in this *722 case does not compel a finding of past persecution or the requisite fear of future persecution. See INS v. Elias-Zaccarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). General manifestations of hostility between competing ethnic and religious groups does not constitute persecution. Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir.1998). Accordingly, I would deny the petition for review.

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioners Mary Monica Shariff (“Shariff’) and her daughter Reesha seek review *721 of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). 1 The BIA’s decision that Shariff was not entitled to asylum and relief from deportation is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Rivera-Moreno v. INS, 213 F.3d 481, 485 (9th Cir.2000). To reverse the BIA’s decision, Shariff must establish not only that the evidence supports a contrary decision, but also that it compels it. Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.1995) (citing Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 338-39 (9th Cir.1995)).

Shariff, an ethnic Indian and citizen of Fiji, presented evidence that ethnic Fijians insulted and threatened her and stole her property. She also presented evidence that her house was repeatedly robbed and eventually burned down. The ethnic Fijian police were not able to establish the cause of the burning of Shariff s house. In his dissent, BIA Chairman Schmidt correctly pointed out that this fact does not eliminate the house-burning as an objectively reasonable basis for fearing persecution.

Moreover, there is evidence that a “pattern or practice” of persecution of ethnic…