Doctor

MEMORANDUM **

Elpidio Nagal Doctor petitions for review of the IJ’s decision denying his application for asylum and the BIA’s summary affirmance thereof. As the parties are familiar with the facts, procedural history, and arguments, we will not recount them here. We deny the petition.

Assuming Doctor’s testimony is credible, Doctor failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground upon his return to the Philippines. This component of a claim for asylum requires a showing by “credible, direct, and specific” evidence of facts supporting a reasonable fear of persecution. Mej ia-Paiz v. INS, 111 F.3d 720, 728 (9th Cir.1997).

The evidence established that the threats from the New People’s Army were attributable to Doctor’s government position. As Doctor no longer holds that position, and in light of the NPA’s diminished presence in the country, the evidence failed to establish that there was an objective basis for a well-founded fear of future persecution on the part of Doctor.

In addition, Doctor failed to establish that the government was unable or unwilling to protect him. Simply because Doctor was refused his own security detail does not…

dissenting.

I dissent. The IJ’s adverse credibility determination should be reversed as it is wholly without support in the record. First, contrary to the IJ’s assertions, the only information that Doctor was unable to recall about the NPA was the year in which a particular leader was captured. This sort of lack of knowledge reveals nothing about credibility. See Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1166 (9th Cir.2000). *767 Second, the IJ’s proffered reasons for his adverse credibility finding were based on pure speculation. He found that Doctor’s claims of indifference by the Metropolitan Manila Council and police were implausible and that it made no sense that the NPA would attempt to extort money from Doctor, given that he was not a wealthy man. Such personal conjecture about what the government or the guerrillas might or might not do is “not a substitute for substantial evidence.” Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217 , 1227 (9th Cir.2002); see also Lopez-Reyes v. INS, 79 F.3d 908, 912 (9th Cir. 1998) . Indeed, the speculation here provides a clear illustration of the reason for the rule: here, it is the IJ’s speculation that makes little sense. Moreover, Doctor’s testimony about the death…