With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". — which is the only evidence we have on this point — makes it plain that the soldier was “not interested” in whether petitioner was still “politically involved,” id. at 161; his only concern was with petitioner’s ability to pay. Our cases have long held that private acts of extortion cannot form the predicate for an asylum claim. In Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir.1998), we held that applicants seeking to prove past persecution must show more than merely “that they had been the victim of criminal activity.” Id. at 1281. Similarly, in Florez-de Solis v. INS, 796 F.2d 330 (9th Cir.1986), we held that a group that collected a private debt violently was not acting on account of political opinion despite its political affiliation. Id. at 355; see also Sangha, 103 F.3d at 1491 (<HOLDING>). The majority disregards these cases and

A: holding that forced recruitment does not amount to persecution without a showing that it was on account of petitioners political opinion
B: holding that applicant failed to establish imputed political opinion where he presented no evidence that an antigovernmental guerilla group imputed his fathers political beliefs to him
C: holding that recruitment of petitioner by a guerilla group may have had nonpolitical justifications
D: 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
C.