of his opposition to Maoism through an article that he published in a local paper, they “made clear to [him] that his ... political opinion contributed to their hatred of him and provided them with additional motive for their actions.” Gafoor v. INS, 231 F.3d 645, 651 (9th Cir.2000); see also Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th Cir.2009). Indeed, they sent him a letter telling him to stop publishing articles “against ... the party,” informing him that his name was on the “red list,” that he faced “action any time anywhere,” and that he should give them money “soon” to save his life. While they had demanded money from his family before, it was not until after he published the article that they threatened his life. See Gonzales-Neyra v. INS, 122 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the background evidence confirms
holding that attempted conscription by a guatemalan guerrilla group did not constitute persecution on account of a political opinion where petitioner failed to show that the group was motivated by his political opinion holding that evidence that the petitioner had a political opinion that he expressed it to his persecutors and that they threatened him only after he expressed his opinion compelled the conclusion that the threats were connected to his political opinion and not only to his failure to provide money in response to demands from the persecutors that predated his expression of his political opinion holding that imputed political opinion is a protected ground holding persecutors were motivated by petitioners political opinion not just fear of prosecution where persecutors did not threaten retaliation if petitioner reported their crimes but instead demanded that petitioner leave the country or die holding that fathers military service alone was neither political opinion nor sufficient to establish imputed political opinion