
    Adi Miriama NAYADA, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
    No. 00-71336.
    I & NS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 10, 2001.
    Decided Dec. 6, 2001.
    Before PREGERSON and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WEINER, Senior District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Charles Weiner, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Nayada (“Nayada”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum. Nayada’s evidence of past persecution includes a single incident of police questioning regarding her political affiliation, and villagers telling her father of threats of rape against Nayada. Nayada has failed to present evidence of past persecution or fear of future persecution sufficient to compel a finding contrary to that of the IJ. See Chebchoub v. I.N.S., 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION DENIED.

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge,

dissenting.

Nayada not only presented evidence that the Fijian military arrested her and that ethnic Fijians over several years repeatedly threatened her with rape. She also presented evidence that her father was beaten and her brother was stabbed. Finally, she presented evidence that several times, her family’s crops were burned and their farm animals were killed. Nayada alleged that the Fijian military and ethnic Fijians did these things because Nayada’s father and brother, although ethnic Fijians, were active in a predominantly ethnic Indian party. This evidence fits our circuits definition of past persecution as “the infliction of suffering or harm upon those who differ (in race, religion or political opinion) in a way regarded as offensive.” Prasad v. I.N.S., 47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir.1995). Moreover, Nayada was persecuted on account of imputed political opinion because she was “a member of a politically active family, other members of which have been persecuted in the past for their political beliefs.” Navas v. I.N.S., 217 F.3d 646, 659 (9th Cir.2000). The evidence in this case, therefore, compels a finding contrary to that of the IJ. I respectfully dissent. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     