Guillen-Meza

Dissenting.

I dissent because, in my view, the BIA’s and IJ’s conclusion that the petitioner failed to carry his burden of proof is supported by substantial evidence.

MEMORANDUM **

Magno Guillen-Meza, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) *890 summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Because the transitional rules apply, Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review the denial of asylum and withholding of deportation for substantial evidence, Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000), and will uphold the IJ’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-484 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We grant the petition for review.

Because the IJ did not make an explicit adverse credibility determination in this case, we accept petitioner’s testimony as true. See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 652, n. 3 (9th Cir.2000).

Assuming that Guillen-Meza’s testimony is true, the record shows that Guillen-Meza was persecuted by the Peruvian government, on account of an imputed political association with the Shining Path, and that Guillen-Meza has a well-founded fear of future persecution at the…