have a continued interest in her or whether the political forces now controlling the Guatemalan government were the same as those in control in 1991. The objective reasonableness of her fear of future persecution is further undermined by the length of time that has elapsed since the 1991 threat, her ability to return to Guatemala on five occasions without incident, and her daughter’s ability to live in Escuintla since 1991 without threats or harassment. See Kone v. Holder, 596 F.3d 141, 148 (2d Cir.2010) (adopting Ninth Circuit’s holding that “ ‘return trips can be considered as one factor, among others, to rebut th[e] presumption [of future persecution]’ ” (quoting Boer-Sedano v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th Cir.2005))); Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). The record also supports the agency’s finding
recognizing that the governments inability to control the source of persecution may support a finding of a wellfounded fear holding that record did not compel finding of asylum on grounds of a future fear of persecution in part because the petitioners child and parents remained in columbia unharmed holding that an applicants wellfounded fear claim was speculative at best when he failed to present solid support that he would be persecuted for violating family planning policy upon his return to china holding that ability of applicants family to remain unharmed cuts against finding of wellfounded fear holding that wellfounded fear was established where all of petitioners similarly situated family members were persecuted