With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § llOSala). We review the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence, see Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 657 (9th Cir.2000), and grant the petition for review. Petitioner’s credible testimony compels the conclusion that petitioner was persecuted at least in part on account of her political opinion. See Borja v. INS, 175 F.3d 732, 736 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc). The guerrilla-assailant was aware that petitioner supported the government. Cf. Molino-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir.2001) (denying petition for review where assailants were not aware of the witness’ political opinion). In addition, the guerrilla-assailant did not threaten petitioner merely because she had witnessed guerrilla activity and might report it. See Navas, 217 F.3d at 661 (<HOLDING>). To the contrary, the guerrilla’s threats

A: holding that evidence that the petitioner had a political opinion that he expressed it to his persecutors and that they threatened him only after he expressed his opinion compelled the conclusion that the threats were connected to his political opinion and not only to his failure to provide money in response to demands from the persecutors that predated his expression of his political opinion
B: 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: holding persecutors were motivated by petitioners political opinion not just fear of prosecution where persecutors did not threaten retaliation if petitioner reported their crimes but instead demanded that petitioner leave the country or die
D: holding that persecutors statements indicating that they had chosen her because of her fathers relationship to the philippine government constituted persecution on account of an imputed political opinion
C.