her appeal from an Immigration Judge’s denial of her application for asylum and withholding of deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1253(h). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We deny the petition for review. We review factual determinations concerning a petitioner’s eligibility for asylum for substantial evidence and must uphold the BIA’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary result. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Because Sakultheeraphong failed to show that she suffered extortion on account of a protected ground, the evidence did not compel the conclusion that she was persecuted. Id.; cf. Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732, 736 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Because Sakultheeraphong did not suffer
holding that harm purely motivated by wealth is not persecution holding that fathers military service alone was neither political opinion nor sufficient to establish imputed political opinion holding that extortion motivated in part by political opinion could qualify as persecution 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 persecution was on account of political opinion because petitioners prosecutorial investigation into acts of political corruption was by its very nature political