v. INS, 863 F.2d 1458, 1459 (9th Cir.1988). The INS does not carry that burden in this case. The INS offers several reasons for why its defense of the BIA’s decision was substantially justified. The most significant of these is the INS’s claim that the central issue of this appeal — the nature and quantum of evidence required to establish persecution on account of political opinion where the record contains evidence of other motives for persecution — was a unique issue of first impression. This statement is plainly wrong. Far from presenting an issue of first impression, this case was controlled by our previous decision in Harpinder Singh v. Ilchert, 63 F.3d 1501 (9th Cir.1995). We stated this in our opinion granting Ratnam’s petition for review. See Ratnam, 154 F.3d at 996 (<HOLDING>). Following Harpinder Singh’s legal analysis,
holding that stare decisis is not applicable unless the issue was squarely addressed in a prior decision holding that state law controlled damage issues holding that stare decisis does not apply unless the question at issue was squarely addressed in prior decisions holding in sensenbremer squarely on point in eifs case holding that the case was squarely controlled by harpinder singh 