in the particular case was directed toward punishing or modifying perceived political views ...; was part of the violence inherent in an armed conflict (i.e., lawful acts of war); or, was motivated by some other reason unrelated to asylum law.” Id. at 493-94. Under these circumstances, the IJ did not clearly err by accepting one plausible interpretation of the Maoists’ motives rather than another. Although it is certainly possible that Maoist rebels deemed Khatri Chhetri’s police report a political act, it is equally plausible that they did not. Hostile actions by paramilitary groups are not per se acts of persecution based on imputed political opinion simply because those groups have political aims. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Here, the only corroborating evidence Khatri
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 guerrilla groups attempt to recruit alien did not establish persecution based on political opinion holding that a guerrilla organizations attempt to coerce a person into performing military service does not necessarily constitute persecution on account of  political opinion  holding that refusal to join guerrilla group is itself not affirmative expression of political opinion holding that actions by antigovernment guerrilla group with political agenda are not automatically politically driven