in this case under the factors set forth in § 1003.1(a)(7)(ii). Next, Adan challenges the immigration judge’s finding that he failed to demonstrate that he suffered past persecution or that he possesses a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. The decision to grant or deny asylum relief is conclusive “unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000). We conclude that the record supports the immigration judge’s conclusion that Adan failed to establish his eligibility for asylum on a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2003) (stating that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish his eligibility for asylum); INS v. EliasZacarías, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original). As the decision in
holding the fact that petitioners had been the victims of criminal activity in russia is not a basis for asylum unless their harassers knew of and pursued them because of race religion nationality membership in a particular group or political opinion holding that a petitioners unwillingness to return must be based upon persecution or a wellfounded fear of persecution on account of race religion nationality membership in a particular social group or 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 the alien must show that the record compels the conclusion that he has a wellfounded fear that the guerrillas will persecute him because of his political opinion or membership in a social group rather than because of his refusal to fight with them 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