or three occasions, were never acted upon. And despite these threats, Novary felt secure enough in his safety to remain in the country for several months following his initial encounter with the group. Moreover, Novary has not shown that the threats were made “on account of’ his political opinion. He does not claim, for instance, that he publicly participated in any political activities, and there is no evidence that Laskar Jihad was ever aware of his political leanings. Thus, he cannot show that Laskar Jihad’s threats resulted from his support for the Indonesian government: the group threatened him not for any political opinion he might have held, but because he spurned their attempts to recruit him. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Because there is no link between the group’s
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 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 holding that young men who resist gang recruitment do not constitute a particular social group and refusal to join a gang does not amount to a political opinion