## Facts

- Abdul Gafoor, an Indo-Fijian and former Fijian police officer, sought asylum and withholding of deportation for himself and his family based on harm inflicted by ethnic Fijian soldiers.
- While on duty, Gafoor arrested a man caught raping a 13-year-old girl; Gafoor’s supervisor later told him the arrestee was a high-ranking army officer and warned Gafoor he was in danger.
- The following night, the officer and uniformed soldiers came to Gafoor’s home, beat him in front of his family, and detained him for about a week; during detention he was repeatedly assaulted and told not to report the rape or the assaults.
- During detention, soldiers accused Gafoor of being “in opposition to the army” during a period of political upheaval involving a coup against an Indo-Fijian-led government.
- After his release, the same officer and soldiers beat Gafoor again with rifles, threatened to kill him, and told him to “return to India”; they left him unconscious, and he was hospitalized for nine days.
- Gafoor and his family fled Fiji, traveled through Canada, and entered the United States; the government later initiated deportation proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that the attacks were purely personal retaliation for arresting a high-ranking officer, rather than persecution “on account of” race or political opinion (including imputed political opinion).
2. Whether current country conditions in Fiji affected the analysis of Gafoor’s fear of future persecution on return.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review.
- The court held the agency’s no-nexus finding was not supported by substantial evidence because record evidence showed at least partial racial and political motive.
- The court vacated the denial to the extent it rested on the no-nexus determination and remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of whether recent events in Fiji supported Gafoor’s fear of future persecution.

## Legal Principles

- An asylum applicant need not prove a protected ground was the sole motive for harm; it is enough if race or political opinion was at least one motive for the persecution.
- Direct statements by persecutors during an attack (e.g., “go back to India,” or accusations of opposing the army) are probative evidence of persecutory motive and can defeat a characterization of harm as merely personal revenge.
- Under substantial-evidence review, an agency finding must be set aside when the record evidence compels the conclusion that a protected ground contributed to the persecution.
- Evidence of changed or deteriorating country conditions is relevant to whether a well-founded fear of future persecution exists and may require remand for agency evaluation in the first instance.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit concluded that the record compelled a finding that Gafoor’s mistreatment was motivated at least in part by his Indo-Fijian identity and perceived political opposition, not solely personal retaliation, and it remanded for the agency to assess future risk in light of then-recent conditions in Fiji.


Gafoor v. I.N.S., 231 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2000)