Farrales

concurring.

I concur solely for the reason that, by virtue of its introduction of evidence regarding current country conditions, the government rebutted the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution to which petitioner was entitled as a result of his having established past persecution.

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Jaime Ador Farrales and his family (Farrales), natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of their application for asylum and withholding of removal. Farrales also claims on appeal that he is a United States citizen. We find that the IJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and therefore deny the petition for review.

In order to qualify for asylum based on political persecution, the applicant must show that he suffered persecution on account of his political opinion. Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir.1997). The IJ was correct in finding that Farrales provided insufficient evidence to establish that his shooting was politically motivated. Nor did Farrales provide any evidence that the government was unable or unwilling to control his alleged attackers. See id.

Even if the shooting had amounted to past persecution, the IJ correctly concluded that current circumstances rebut Farrales’ fear of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 (b)(1). These circumstances include the fact that the political party of Farrales’ alleged attacker…