Bortnikov

dissenting.

Because I do not believe that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that “Pamyat members attacked Bortnikov solely because they believed that he possessed a criminally inculpatory videotape,” I respectfully dissent. Both the record and our precedent compel the conclusion that by presenting credible testimony that his persecution was “on account of’ a protected ground, Bortnikov established his eligibility for asylum.

“[I]t is often difficult to determine the exact motive ... for which harm has been inflicted.” In Re S-P-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 486, 492 , 1996 WL 422990 (BIA 1996). In consequence, an asylum applicant need only “provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (emphasis in original). It is well established that an applicant may qualify for asylum where persecution occurred for multiple reasons, as long as “the harm was motivated, at least in part, by an actual or implied protected ground.” Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732, 736 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc); see also In Re S-P-, 21 I. & N. Dec. at 494-95 . Here, the evidence compels a finding that Bortni-kov’s…

MEMORANDUM **

Eugueni Bortnikov (Bortnikov) is a native and citizen of Russia who entered the United States on a student visa in 1994. He petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Because deportation proceedings were commenced before April 1, 1997, and the final order was issued after October 30, 1996, we have jurisdiction pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a), as amended by the transitional rules for judicial review in § 309(c)(4) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1997). We deny the petition.

I

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Bortnikov failed to establish past persecution on account of his political opinion, his ethnicity, or his membership in a particular social group. The Pamyat members attacked Bortnikov solely because they believed that he possessed a criminally inculpatory videotape. Regardless of whether Bortnikov may have privately harbored an anti-Pamyat *289 political view, there was no nexus between Bortnikov’s views and the Pamyat members’…