that such a threat exists if he can show he suffered past persecution on account of his membership in a protected social group. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(l)(I); Baballah v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1067, 1079 (9th Cir.2004). “Persecution may be inflicted either by the government or by persons or organizations which the government is unable or unwilling to control.” Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir.1997) (quotation marks omitted). Ornelas-Chavez can meet his burden either by offering credible and persuasive testimony, 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b) (“The testimony of the applicant, if credible, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proof without corroboration.”), or by producing specific documentary evidence to support his claim, see Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). In concluding that Ornelas-Chavez did not
holding that an asylum applicant must establish a fear of reprisal on account of having demonstrated opposition to the government policy holding that because the ij denied an asylum application as untimely we lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction to review the final order of removal as it pertained to the asylum claim holding that an asylum applicant must make a showing of a particularized threat of persecution holding that asylum seeker failed to establish well founded fear of persecution based on oppression of asylum seekers family unrelated to asylum seekers actions holding that documentary evidence pertaining to the asylum applicant himself and to the events in which he was involved  can independently establish facts essential to  an asylum claim