context: Substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of withholding of removal because Gorbitz Espinoza failed to establish that the Shining Path persecuted him on account of an imputed political opinion.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 293 F.3d 1089, 1094-95
citation_a.parenthetical: no imputed political opinion where petitioner offered no evidence that his father had a political opinion that could be imputed to petitioner
citation_a.sentence: See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1094-95 (9th Cir.2002) (no imputed political opinion where petitioner offered no evidence that his father had a political opinion that could be imputed to petitioner); see also Cruz-Navarro, 232 F.3d at 1030 (no imputed political opinion where there was no evidence to show that guerillas imputed a political opinion to petitioner). Moreover, the record does not support Gorbitz Espinoza’s contention that he was persecuted on account of an actual political opinion.
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 232 F.3d 1030, 1030
citation_b.parenthetical: no imputed political opinion where there was no evidence to show that guerillas imputed a political opinion to petitioner
citation_b.sentence: See Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1094-95 (9th Cir.2002) (no imputed political opinion where petitioner offered no evidence that his father had a political opinion that could be imputed to petitioner); see also Cruz-Navarro, 232 F.3d at 1030 (no imputed political opinion where there was no evidence to show that guerillas imputed a political opinion to petitioner). Moreover, the record does not support Gorbitz Espinoza’s contention that he was persecuted on account of an actual political opinion.