Opinion by Judge ALDISERT; Concurrence by Judge MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS.

The principal question for decision is whether retaliation against a nurse, who refused to join a guerrilla movement to give medical care to their wounded, constitutes “persecution ... on account of political opinion” under § 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“the Act” or “INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(42) (1998).

Silvia Rivera-Moreno, a.k.a. Vilma Aracely Argueta, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. She claims she is eligible for asylum because she is unable or unwilling to return to El Salvador “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of ... political opinion.” Id.

This court follows the doctrine of “hazardous neutrality,” in which a lack of political opinion may constitute a political opinion for purposes of the INA. We define hazardous neutrality as “showing] political neutrality in an environment in which political neutrality is fraught with hazard, from governmental or uncontrolled anti-governmental forces.” Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1488 (9th Cir.1997). This court has explained the elements of hazardous neutrality:

Sangha, 103 F.3d at 1488 .

We adhere to this precept 1 notwithstanding the statement of the Supreme Court in 1992:

INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (emphasis added).

*484 To be sure, the Court did not reach the question whether neutrality amounts to holding a political opinion, because it held that Elias-Zacarias did not meet the high burden of showing that “the record ... compels the conclusion that he has a ‘well-founded fear’ that the guerrillas will persecute him because of that political opinion.” See id. (first emphasis added). Thus, our task in similar cases subsequent to Elias-Zacarias is to determine whether the record compels the conclusion that the petitioner has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his or her political opinion. See id.; see, e.g., Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir.1999) (in banc) (holding that evidence must compel the conclusion that guerrillas persecuted petitioner on account of her political opinion); Gonzales-Neyra v. INS, 122 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir.1997) (requiring that evidence show persecution has been or will be on account of political opinion); Sangha, 103 F.3d at 1487 (stating that “[a]pplicants can no longer establish that their persecution was ‘on account of political opinion by inference”). Here, Petitioner argues that a reasonable fact finder would be compelled to find that she was persecuted on account of her neutral political belief.

I.

Rivera-Moreno worked as an assistant nurse at a local health unit in Perquin, El Salvador. Her first contact with the guerrillas was in 1980, when they came into her clinic and took medicine from her at gunpoint. In 1981 the guerrilla forces took over Perquin and demanded that she join them and give medical care to their wounded. She refused and explained in her testimony that she told them: “I didn’t belong to any party. My rule was to help anybody. It didn’t matter if it came from the guerrillas or the army or any group.” E.R. at 34. Regardless, they forced her to care for their wounded for nine days, at which time she escaped and moved to the town of San Miguel.

In 1989, eight years after her kidnaping in Perquin, guerrillas took over San Miguel and discovered documents that indicated that Rivera-Moreno was a nurse. The guerrillas again pressured her to join them, but she refused. This time she did not repeat her statements of neutrality expressed eight years earlier. She testified that “[the guerrillas] told me that they needed me very much and I refused to accompany them. I opposed that.” E.R. at 35. The record contains no evidence to suggest that the guerrillas in San Miguel knew of her political neutrality. The San Miguel guerrillas retaliated against her for refusing to help them by destroying her house with a bomb. They told her that the bomb was “just the beginning,” E.R. at 36, and again forced her to care for their wounded. She escaped after three days of captivity.

Rivera-Moreno returned to San Miguel two years later, at which time the guerrillas left her a handwritten note demanding that she return to Perquin to assist them. She ignored the note and then received a second typewritten note, which demanded that she report to Perquin within 15 days or her life would be in danger. About nine days after receiving this note, she fled to the United States on April 27, 1991.

Two days after arriving here, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) initiated exclusion proceedings and charged her with being excludable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a)(19), as an immigrant who has procured a visa or other documentation by fraud or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact and not being in possession of a valid immigrant visa. Petitioner applied for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a) 2 and withholding of deportation *485 under 8 U.S.C. § 1253 (h). 3 The immigration judge denied asylum and withholding of deportation and granted voluntary departure. On appeal, the BIA agreed that Petitioner was not eligible for asylum because she was not persecuted as a result of an actual or imputed political opinion.

The BIA’s jurisdiction arose under 8 C.F.R. § 3.1 (b)(2). This court has jurisdiction to review the petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. 4 The petition was timely filed as provided by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1).

The BIA’s factual decision that an alien has not established eligibility for asylum and withholding of deportation is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 481 , 112 S.Ct. 812 ; Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir.1998). The Court has emphasized that this standard is extremely deferential, requiring a reviewing court to uphold the Board’s denial unless an alien demonstrates “that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84 , 112 S.Ct. 812 .

II.

Withholding deportation is distinct from granting asylum. Withholding only bars deporting an alien to a particular country; asylum permits an alien to remain in the United States and to apply for permanent residency after one year. INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 , 119 S.Ct. 1439, 1443 , 143 L.Ed.2d 590 (1999).

Asylum is granted at the discretion of the Attorney General if the alien qualifies as a “refugee.”

8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(42)(A). Withholding deportation is mandatory if the “alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in such country on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1253 (h)(1). We will examine Petitioner’s applicatión for asylum first, because if she fails to satisfy the requirement for asylum, she will necessarily fail the more stringent requirement for- withholding deportation. Kazlauskas v. INS, 46 F.3d 902, 907 (9th Cir.1995).

III.

An applicant may , qualify as a refugee if she can show she was a victim of persecution or has a well-founded fear of persecution upon return to her home country. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(42)(A); Desir v. Ilchert, 840 F.2d 723, 728 (9th Cir.1988). The applicant must show that her persecution was or will be on account of one of the categories protected under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(42)(A). An alien who establishes *486 past persecution is presumed to have a well-founded fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 (b)(l)(i); Prasad v. INS, 101 F.3d 614, 617 (9th Cir.1996). “This presumption may be overcome by evidence that since the time the persecution occurred conditions ... have changed to such an extent that [the petitioner] no longer has a well-founded fear of being persecuted if he were to return.” Prasad, 101 F.3d at 617 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, we have emphasized that “the applicant must produce evidence from which it is reasonable to believe that the harm was motivated, at least in part, by an actual or implied protected ground.” Borja, 175 F.3d at 736 .

It is clear that persecution for failure to contribute nursing services is not a protected ground under § 1101(a)(42)(A) and Petitioner does not argue that it is. Rather, her argument is anchored on the theory that she specifically avowed to the Per-quin guerrillas that she was neutral and that this statement constituted an expression of a political opinion in accordance with the teachings of this court. See San-gha, 103 F.3d at 1488 (“[T]he applicant must ... show that [her] opinion was articulated sufficiently for it to be the basis of ... persecution.... ”). Our task then is to examine the record to determine whether she demonstrated that the evidence that she was persecuted because of her political neutrality “was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder would fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84 , 112 S.Ct. 812 .

IV.

To qualify for asylum an applicant “must tie the persecution to a protected cause ... [and] show the persecutor had a protected basis ... in mind in undertaking the persecution.” Canas-Segovia v. INS, 970 F.2d 599, 601 (9th Cir.1992). We are persuaded that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a nexus between her expression of neutrality at Perquin in 1981-an affirmative expression of political opinion-and the subsequent bombing of her house eight years later in San Miguel because she refused to deliver nursing services. An expression of a political opinion must not be considered in vacuo; it must be a direct and immediate cause of the fear of persecution, although it need not be the only cause. See Borja, 175 F.3d at 736 .

The record contains no evidence that Petitioner expressed her political neutrality in the eight years between the incident in Perquin and the retaliatory action in 1989. Under these circumstances we cannot conclude as a matter of law that the immigration judge was unreasonable in finding that the guerrillas

E.R. at 22. The BIA agreed with the IJ’s findings of fact: “We concur in the Immigration Judge’s decision that the applicant’s testimony demonstrates that the guerrillas were interested in her because they wanted her to treat wounded individuals, not because of her actual or imputed political opinion or for any of the other enumerated grounds-” E.R. at 3. Here, too, we cannot conclude that this was unreasonable as a matter of law.

The IJ’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. When Petitioner refused to join the guerrillas in 1981, she told them that she “didn’t belong to any party,” and that her “rule was to help anybody.” E.R. at 34. However, she neither testified nor presented evidence to show that she was subsequently persecuted by the Perquin guerrillas in response to that statement. Her testimony is not so persuasive as to compel the conclusion that they retaliated against her because of her political neutrality. Although she was *487 forced to contribute her nursing skills to them for nine days until she escaped, the Perquin guerrillas did not pursue her and they did not punish her. Indeed, she had no contact with any part of the guerrilla movement until eight years later.

The San Miguel guerrillas attempted to recruit Petitioner in 1989 because they found documents that showed she was a nurse. They did not pursue her because of her neutral stance. See E.R. at 84-35. She did not express any political views, neutral or otherwise, to the guerrillas who attempted to recruit her in 1989. Thus, Petitioner presented no evidence to suggest the 1989 guerrillas knew she was neutral; they only knew that she refused to contribute her nursing skills to them. They bombed her home in retaliation for her refusal to deliver these services to them, not because of her political beliefs.

Because we hold that she was not persecuted on account of political opinion and does not satisfy the requirements for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the higher standard for withholding of deportation. See Kazlauskas, 46 F.3d at 907 .

Substantial evidence supports the findings that Rivera-Moreno was not persecuted on account of political opinion.

DENIED.

. Other Courts of Appeals have refused to explicitly adopt the doctrine of political neutrality. See, e.g., Alvarez-Flores v. INS, 909 F.2d 1 , 6 n. 4 (1st Cir.1990) ("Only the Ninth Circuit clearly has held that neutrality is a political opinion within the meaning of the Act.”); Perlera-Escobar v. Executive Office for Immigration, 894 F.2d 1292, 1297-98 (11th Cir.1990) (pointing out that acceptance of neutrality as a political opinion "would create a sinkhole that would swallow the rule”); Cruz-Lopez v. INS, 802 F.2d 1518 , 1520 n. 3 (4th Cir.1986) (declining to follow the Ninth Circuit rule); M.A. A26851062 v. INS, 899 F.2d 304 , 315 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc) (refusing to accept or reject neutrality as a political opinion). The Eighth Circuit has not adopted our teachings, but it has implied that it may recognize neutrality as a political opinion when a petitioner shows "that their fear' of persecution is connected to or based on their political neutrality .... [not] fear of [ ] general violence and unrest.” Lopez-Zeron v. United States, 8 F.3d 636, 638 (8th Cir.1993).

. Section 1158(a) reads:

8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a).

. This provision was removed by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-208, § 307 (a) (1996). Because Rivera-Moreno's case was brought before the effective date of the act, we will apply the pre-amendment law.

. The 1996 Act replaced 8 U.S.C. § 1105a with a new judicial review provision codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Because Rivera-Moreno’s deportation proceedings commenced before April 1, 1997, this court continues to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. See Sebastian-Sebastian v. INS, 195 F.3d 504 , 505 n. 2 (9th Cir.1999).