## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 1932 S H E RB A NO M O O SA, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R . , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er o f the B o ard of Immigration App eals

.

No . A 076 775 172

A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 23, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AY 5, 2011

Befo re C UDAH Y, F LA UM, an d W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , Cir cu i tJudg e . S herba no M oo sa, a ci ti zen o f Paki sta n, ente re d the U n ite d State s o n a v i si tor ’ s v i sa i n 199 5 a nd r em ai ned afterhervi sa ex p ired. M oo sa w as ev en tu ally o r d e r ed rem ov ed , bu t s h e a p p ar en tly i gnor ed that com m and an d r em ai ned i n the countr y. N ear l y s eve n yea rs l ate r, M oo sa fi l ed a m oti on t o re open h er p ro c ee d in gs w ith th e B oa rd of I m m i gr at ion A p p ea ls ( “Boar d”). In herm oti on, M oo sa ar gued that “change d2 N o. 10

- 1932 countr y c ondit i ons” i n Paki sta n m ade herel i gibl e for as yl um and w ar ra nted r eopeni ng hercas e. M oo sa al so as k ed th e Bo ar d t o r eo penhe rc as e o n i ts o wn m o ti o n. Fi nd i ng insuffi ci ent e vi dence ofch an ged ci rcum sta nces and a f ai l ure to prese nt a prim a faci e c a s e f o ra s y l u m, th e Bo a r d de ni e d M o o s a ’ s mot i o n a nd de c l i ned to r eo pen th e pr o ce eding s o n i ts o wn. M o o sa no w p et i ti o ns th is court for review of th e B oard ’s dec isi on. She offers thre e g ro und s forr el i ef : fi rs t, thatthe B oa rd a bused i ts di sc r et i o n b y de ny i ng he rmot i o n in a manne rtha t ex ceeded i ts author i ty; seco nd , that i t used p ro c edures that fel lbel ow co nsti tuti onaldue proc ess st andards; and thi rd, thati t co m m i tte d l ega ler ror as i t a nal yze d h er ev id en c e o f ch an ge d co n d itio n s. N o n e o f th es e is enough t o ov er ride the Boar d’s bro ad author i ty here , h o we v e r, a n d s o we d e n y th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.

I M oo sa l ega l l y e nter ed the U ni ted S tat es on a 6- m onth no n- i m m i g r an t vi sa i n J une 1 99 5, b ut, as we no te d, s he ove rs tay ed that ter m . S eek i ng to bec om e a l aw ful perm ane ntr es i den t, b utwi th ou t m uchmor e th anthi s i nt en ti on, M oo sa appli ed f or an adj ustm ent of sta tus to th at ofper m anent r esi dent thr ee yea rs l ate r. M oo sa’ s a pp l i cat i o n, h o we v e r, o ffe r e d n o r e a s o n tha t t he g o v e r n i n gl a ws w o u ld recogn ize for granting this rel ief, and not su rpri si ngl y, herappli cati on w as denie d. Se e 8 U
. S. C. §§ 1255

- 58 . Th e l ega cy I m m i gr ati on a nd N atur al i zati on S er vi ce i nsti tuted r em ova lpro ceedi ngs a gainst M oo sa i n 200 0.N o. 10

- 1932 3 A t herr em ova lhear i ng be f or e an I m m i gr ati on J ud ge ( “IJ ”) , M oo sa’ s l aw yeradvi sed herto i nvoke herFi fth A m en dme ntr i g htt o r e main s i l e nt
. Co ns i s t e ntwi th thi s quest i onabl e co unsel, se e IN S v
. Lo pez-M e ndoz a , 46 8 U
. S. 1 032, 10 38- 39 ( 1984 ) ( hol ding that a “ deporta ti on p ro c ee d in g is a p u re ly c i v i l a c tio n,” n ota “c rim in al” p roce e d in g), M oosa refuse d to answ er even the IJ ’s m ostbas ic qu est i ons, co ver i ng such t opi cs a s her co unt r y o fo r i g i n, h er i ni ti alr ea so ns f o rv i si tingthe U n ite d Sta te s, h er rea so n s fo r p u rs u i n g p er m an en t re sidency, and herm ar i talst atus. S tym i ed, the IJ turned t o the i nfo r mat i o n i n M o o s a ’ s a dj us t men to fs t a tus a ppl i c a t i o n; thi s ma de h e rr e mov ab i l i ty ob v i o us . Ind e e d, M oo sa’ s a tto rneyspok e up on o ne poi nt and ass er ted th atM o o sa h ad no fea ro fr etur ni ngt o Pa k i st an . The IJ e nt er ed a rem oval o r der, a nd

— o n th e b a s i s o fth e l a wy er ’ s co m m en t

— note d that M oo sa had no desi re to se ek othe r re l i ef, such a s a sylum , withhol ding ofrem ova l, o r a cl ai m under Arti cl e 3 o ft h e U .N
. Conventi on Agai nst Torture. The Boar d affi rm ed w i thout opi ni on in 200 2. Li k e m an y othe r s be f o r e he r, M o o sa r emai ne d i n the c ou n tr y d es p ite th e re m ov al or d er . See , e . g. , K ucana v. Ho lder, 130 S. C t
. 8 27, 832 (20 10 ); Lia ngv. Ho lder, 62 6 F.3 d 98 3, 98 4 (7 th C ir. 20 1 0 ) ; C hen g C hen v. G o nz a les , 498 F. 3d 75 8, 7 59 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. Al m o sts ev eny ears l a t e r, a nd r e pr e s e nt e d b y n e w counsel, Mo o s a fi l e d a m oti on t o re open herpro ceed ings i n 200 9. S uch a m o ti o n o r dinaril y mustb e fi l ed wi th i n 9 0 day s, b ut M oo sa ar gued that change d cir cum sta nces i n Paki sta n sh ou l d exem pt herfro m the ti m e r equi re m ent. S ee 8 U. S
. C. § 1 22 9a ( c) ( 7)
. To s ucc ee d, M oosa ne ede d t o po i nt4 N o. 10

- 1932 to evi dence m ate ri al l y re lat ed to heras yl um appli cati on a nd unavai l abl e o r und i sco ver abl e a t the t im e o f h er init ial h ea r i n g in 20 01
. Id. A nd , to be el i gibl e for asy l um , M oo sa w oul d ul ti m ate l y need to est abl i sh h er st atus as a “r efug ee ” i n Pa k i st an, whi ch r equi r es d em onstr ating a w el l

- f ounded fe ar offuture perse cuti on a ttributa ble to her “race, rel igi on, n ationality, m em bersh ip in a p ar tic u lar so c ial gr ou p , or p olit ica l op in ion .” 8 U
. S. C
. § 1158(b)(1)( B ). M o o sa a r g ue d tha t if forc ed to r etur n t o Pa k i st ans he f aced a ser i ous r i sk ofper secuti on o n ac c ou n t ofher m em ber shi p in the soc i algr oup of“s i ngl e W est er ni zed wom en . ” M o o sa r emains a c o m m i tt ed M us l i m , b uts he m ai ntai ns that, after15 ye ar s o fco nti nuous r esi dency i n the Uni te d S tate s, s he ha s co m e to i den ti fy wi ththe s o c i a la nd p o l i t i c a lb e l i e f s o fWes t e r n wo men . S he h o l ds p ro -dem ocr ati c va l ues; she bel i eve s her sel fenti tl ed to equaltr eat m ent with m en; and she i s a ccusto m ed to exer ci si ng broa d perso nalchoi ce. Ci ti ng an i nflux of Ta liba n f or ces i n the nor thw estr egi on o fPaki sta n near the S w at Val l ey i n 200 9 ( an ar ea ap p ro xi m ate l y 9 00 m i l es fro m M oo sa’ s ho m e)

— and an att endant spre ad ofst ri ct Sha ria law there

— M oosa ar gued that m i str eat m ent o f w om en and other perso ns with W est er n val ues has es cal ate d. M oo sa furtherclaim ed that w om en l i ke her ar e fr eque nt l y ha r m ed byr el igi ou s l ea der s i n the Tal iban, wh o f or ce wom en to ad h er e to differ ent s oci al ro l es than m en, aff or d w om en few err i ghts, and subject them to physi calvi ol ence i fthes e wom en do no t adeq uatel y c om plywith the te nets ofI sl am as understo od i n Shar i a l aw o r ar e per cei ved as o pp osing i t. M oo saN o. 10

- 1932 5 b e l i e v e s tha th e rt i me i n the Un i t e d S t a t e s h a s ma de her W est er ni zati on a nd o pp osi ti on t o cer tain tenets of I sl am ei th er o bv i o us o re as i l y i m put ed to he r, a nd thus that she has a l egi ti m ate fearo fp er se cuti on ba sed o n he rs o c i a lg r o up . Forsupport, M oo sa poi nted to a var i etyo fso urces : new s a rt i cl es fro m 20 08 and 2009 descr ibi ng the r i se of th e Ta l iba n a nd s pr ea d o fS ha r i a law i n a nd a r o und the Swat Val l ey; re port s fro m hum an ri ghts grou p s d esc rib in g c on d itio n s fa c ed ge n er ally by w om en in Paki sta n ( w hi ch ar e e speci al l y t ough fortho se i n r ural re gi ons) ; a U
. S. Departm ent o f S ta te r epor t fro m 20 01 desc r i b i n g th e T alib an ’s “ w ar ag ain stw om en ” in A fgh an ista n; and the St ate Departm ent’ s 2 008 hum an r i ghts r epo r t an d i ts J ul y 2 00 9 trave lwar ni ngf o rPa k i st an . M o o sa a l so s ubmi tt ed ana ffi dav i t pe rs o na l l y de sc r ibing he rfea ro fpe r se cut i o n. I n an o pini on s i gned by one m em ber, the Board deni ed M oo sa’ s m oti on, ci ti ng two g ro und s. Fi rs t, i t fou nd that M oo sa f ai l ed to sho w change d c irc um sta nces because the r e c o r d wa s b a r r e n o fa nyma t e r i a l, e i the ri n he r curr ent m oti on o r the a dm ini str ati ve re cor d gener al l y, that w oul d establ i sh co untry condi ti ons i n Pakistan a t th e ti m e o fhe r2 001 hear i ng . S ec o nd, the Bo ar d f o und that M oo sa coul d not m ake out a prim a faci e case f oras yl um bec ause the e vi denc e sh e subm i tte d w as too specul ati ve to dem onst ra te a w ell-fo und ed fearo f p ersecu tion. I n ex p lai nin g i ts secon d find ing, th e B oard disc ussed the substa nce o fM oo sa’ s e vi dence but no ted th at M oo sa failed t o p oin t t o “ sp ec ific p as sa ge s” in6 N o. 10

- 1932 her num er ous e xhibi ts “tha t a ctual l y c or robor ate [ ] her sw ee p in g a ss er tio n reg ar d in g th e t re at m en t o f si n gle w om en i n P akista n . ” Th e B oard did not m en tion M oosa’s affi davi t. I t ul ti m ate l y c oncl ud ed t h at M oo sa’ s m oti on did notdem onst ra te c h an ged ci rcum sta nces and denied he rr e qu e s tf o ra s y l um a s u nt i mely

. F i nd i ngn o e xc e ptional circum stan ces, and again p o in ting to M oosa’s f ai l ure to m ake o ut a prim a faci e show i ngf o ra sy l um , the Board al so denie d M oo sa’s re quest t o re open herpro c ee dings as a m att ero fi ts disc re ti on. Thi s peti ti on foll o we d.

II Be f o r e thi s c o ur t, Mo o s a a r g ue s tha tthe Bo a r d ab used its d isc re tio n in d en yin g h er m ot ion to r e o p en . B u t in l i ght o fthe Board’ s b ro ad dis cre ti on t o deny a m oti on t o r e o pe n, se e K uc ana , 13 0 S
. Ct. at83 4, we w i l lnotr eve rs e the Boa rd’ s deci si on “ unle ss i t was m ade witho ut a ra ti onalexpl anati on, i nexpli c abl y depar ted fro m es tabl i shed pol i ci es, o r re ste d o n a n i m perm i ssibl e ba si s s uch as i nvi dio us di scr i m i nati on a gainst a part i cul arr ace or gr ou p . ” Ma n s o u rv . INS , 23 0 F
. 3d 902, 90 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) (i nt erna l qu otation m arks an d citations om itted ).

A M oo sa fi rs t a rgues that the Boar d e xceeded i ts author i ty w h en it look ed be yo n d th e q u es tio n w h et h er s h e c ou ld show changed ci rcum sta nces in Pakista n a nd to ok a peek atthe me r i t s o fh e rc a s e f o ra s y l u m. In Mo o s a ’ s v i e w,N o. 10

- 1932 7 the Boa rd was not perm i tte d to al l ow any spi l l ove r fro m one i ssue to the o ther ; i nste ad , s he i nsi sts , i t had to ke ep th em st r i ct l y s ep ar at ed an d c o ns i dero nl y whethe rthe evid e n ce sh e sub m itted i s “bas ed on ch an ged cou nt ry condi ti ons” i n Paki sta n, and w hetherthatev id ence i s “ m ate ri aland was not avai l abl e a nd would not have been disc ove re d orpre sente d at the pre vi ous pr oce eding . ” 8 U. S
. C. § 1 22 9a( c) ( 7) ( C) ( i i ) ; s ee 8 C. F
. R. § 10 03
. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i )
. S he no te s i n thi s co nne ct i o n thatthe r equi r ement s f o rde m o ns tr at i nge l i g ibi l i tyf o ra sy l um fal l un d er a differen t statu tory section, 8 U
. S. C
. § 1158(b). M o o s a ’ s th e o r y ma k e s n o s e n s e a s a ma t t e ro fs o und ag en c y p ro c ed u re , an d (u n for tu n a te ly for M oo sa ) it is al so a td i r e c to d d s wi th th e l a w. Aft e ra n a l y z i ng th e ev i den ce pr es en ted t o i t an d pr o vi di nga r at i o na le xpla nati on, the Board m ay d en y a m oti on t o re open by fi nd i ng t h at “the m ova nt has not est abl i shed a p r i ma fa cie c as e f o r t h e u n d er lyin g s u b st an tiv e re lief so u gh t.” IN S v
. Abu du , 4 8 5 U. S
. 9 4 , 1 0 4 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ; a c c o r d IN S v. D oherty, 5 0 2 U .S. 31 4, 32 3 (1 99 2); M ans our, 230 F. 3d at 907. I n fac t, th e reg u lat ion s o n w h ich M oo sa relie s d ire c tly r efut e he rpo si ti o n: “ The Bo ar d ha s discre ti o n t o de ny a mo t i on to r e o pe n e v e n i fthe p a r ty mo v i ngh a s ma de out a prim a faciecase for r eli ef. ” 8 C
. F.R. § 1003
. 2(a). Thi s i s ane nt i r ely r ea so nabl e way t o r un thi ng s. The Board i s r equi re d to evaluate w hethert h e al l ege d ch an ged circum stan ces are “m ateria l” to an ap p li can t’s re quest fora sy lu m . Thi s in turn i nvi tes the Board t o det er m i ne whethe rthe se c ha ng es pr ovide the a ppl i ca nt w i th a w el l

- f ounded fearo fper secuti on. W e ca nnot8 N o. 10

- 1932 i m agine the Boar d’s effecti vel y per f or m i ng tha t functi o n, o rpr o vi di nga r ea so ne d b as i s f o rw hy the ass er ted change d ci rcum sta nces al ter( orf ai lto al ter ) i ts ass ess m ent o fan a sylum appli cant’ s cl aim , witho ut at l eas t the o p tio n o f l oo ki ng atwh etherther e i s a p lau s i b l e as ylu m cla im atall. C f. Zh u v . Ho lder, 62 2 F
. 3d 87, 92 ( 1st C ir. 2 010) (noting th at an ap p li can t’s f ail ure t o e s t ab l i s h a “ c r e dib l e c l a i m f o ra s y l um” p r o v i de d a bas is for det erm ining th at “th e all eged cha ng es in cou nt ry c on d itio n s w er e im m at er ial” ). I t is m o r e likely th at it w oul d be a n abuse ofdi scr eti on forthe B oa rd to f ai lto expla i n how the evi dence of changed ci rcum sta nces re l ate s ( or fa ils to re l ate ) to an a sylum cl ai m . S ee Nke n v . Ho lder, 585 F.3d 81 8, 8 2 2

- 2 3 (4 th C ir. 20 09 ); Geb re eye s us v. G o nz a les , 482 F. 3d 952, 95 4- 56 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. A ccor dingl y, w hen the Board’ s deci si on i s s up port ed by a r ati onal expla nati on, w e have f ound no abuse of disc retio n wh en i t has l oo ked ata m ova nt’ s prim a fa c i e ca se f o ra sy l um i n eva l uati ng herm oti on t o re open. S ee, e . g. , Li ang, 62 6 F.3 d at99 1; A w ad v. Ashcroft, 32 8 F.3d 336, 34 0- 42 ( 7th C ir. 2003). D oing s o h ere w as no t beyon d the B oard ’s au th o r i tyo ra n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n.

B M o o sa ne xta r g ue s th atthe Bo ar d de ni ed he rc o ns ti tu
ti onalr i ght t o du e pr oce ss w hen i t di sm i sse d her m oti on to reop en . In M oosa’s view , t h e Boa rd de p rived h er of a m ea n in gfu l op p or tu n ity to b e h ea rd by ina d eq u at ely anal yzing the ev i dence she i ncl ud ed. A si de fro m co ntra
dict i ng herpri orcl ai m thatthe Board m ay n ot anal yzeN o. 10

- 1932 9 thi s e vi dence atal l, M oosa’ s due pro cess ar gum ent, whi c h we r e v i e w deno vo , i s a n o n- s t a r t e r . F o rs upport, M oo sa ci tes cas es that disc uss the r i ght t o du e pr oce ss dur i ng a re m ov al p ro c ee d in g. E.g
. , F l o r o iu v . Go nz a les , 4 8 1 F .3 d 97 0, 97 4 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); Ke r c i k u v . INS , 3 1 4 F. 3d 913, 917-19 (7th C ir. 2003) ( per cu ri am )
. M oo sa i s no t say i ng, however, thatheri ni ti alpro ceedi ngs v i ol at ed he r d u e p r o cess ri gh ts. She cha ll en ges on ly th e B oard ’s disc re ti onar y deci si on to deny her m oti on to re open th os e p ro c ee d in gs . D oherty, 5 02 U. S
. a t 32 3; 8 C. F
. R. § 1 003. 2( a) . B ut, bec ause M oo sa has no l iber ty or p rop erty interest in obta ining d iscretionary relief, Igl esias v . M uk a sey, 54 0 F
. 3d 528 , 5 31 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) , her “r i ght t o du e pr oce ss d oes notexte nd to pro ceedi ngs that provi de o n ly

. . . such r el i ef

. ” Ha m da n v . Go nz a les , 42 5 F.3d 105 1, 1061 ( 7th Cir. 2005).

C F o rh e rfi n a la r g u me n t, Mo o s a r e - b r a n d s h e rc o mpl ainttha t th e Bo ar d f ai l ed ade qua te l y t o a na l y ze the e v i de nc e a s a c l a i m o f l e g a l e r r o r . S ee I gl e s i as , 54 0 F
. 3d at 531. Though the Board’ s di scr eti on t o deny a m oti on t o re open i s br oad, thatdi scr eti on i s no t unl i m i ted; i ts deci si ons m ust be supporte d b y a re aso ned explanat i on th at co rre c tly refle c ts th e la w . Su c h an ex p la n a t i o n is i m possibl e ifthe Board “c om ple tel y i gnor es the e vi dence that a peti ti onerpre sents , ” i d. , an d w e h av e c on sis te n tly f ound an abuse ofdi scr eti on wh er e the Boar d i gnor es or m isa p p lie s a n ap p lica n t’s ev id en c e. Se e, e . g. , Jos eph v. Ho lder, 5 79 F
. 3d 82 7, 8 28, 8 30 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( di sc us sing10 N o. 10

- 1932 p rior rem an d ); Kebe v. G o nz a les , 47 3 F
. 3d 855, 85 7- 58 ( 7th C ir. 2007) (col lecting case s). A s we note d above , the Board deni ed M oosa’ s m oti on to re open o n two separ ate grou n ds: the l ack ofev i dence of “chang ed” c i r cumst an ce s, a nd the f ai l ur e to s uppo rt a pri m a faciec a s e f o ra s y l u m. The Board’ s r eas oni ng o n the fi rs t g ro und does not m enti on t h e r atherunusual postur e o fthi s ca se, wh i ch prese nts a r equest to reop en a p rocee ding f orpurposes of s e e k ing a s y l um whe r e the e a r l i e r pr o c e e ding di d not i nvol ve asy lu m ( and thus, understa nd abl y, di d not devel op f acts per ti nent t o su c h a cl ai m )
. The Boar d noted that M oo sa’ s m oti on incl ud ed i nfo rm ati on r el ated to current c on d itio n s in P ak ist a n bu t w as fau lty be c au se it i nc l ude d no de sc r i pti o n o fc o unt r y c o ndi ti o ns a t th e ti m e o fheri ni ti alhear i ng in 200 1. T h e B oa rd r eas oned that w i thout thi s pri or b ackg ro und i t co uld notderi ve a ba se l i ne f o rc o m par i ngc i r cumst ance s to de te r m i ne whe the rco nd i t i o ns h a d ch ange d. M oo sa re sponds that the evi dence she subm i tte d desc ribed eve nts w hi c h to ok pla ce in 2008 a n d 20 09. By defi ni ti on, thes e e vents c o u l d n o th a v e ta k e n p l a c e b e f o r e h e ri n i t i a lh e a r i n g . We ha ve no qua r r el wi thM o o sa ’ s as se r ti o n tha t ana ppl i ca nt need not have a pri oras ylum appli cati on o n the boo ks t o p r o v i de the Bo a r d wi th i nfo r mat i o n o f“ c ha ng e d” ci rcum sta nces . B ut thi s doe s no t hel p her here

. Though s h e c o u l d n o tr e l y u p o n d o c um e n t s a v a i l ab l e a tth e t i me of h er20 01 hear i ng, nothi ng pre vente d M oo sa fro m supp or ti ng herm oti on t o re open with c ountr y r epor ts, affid av its , or ot h er info rm at ion d es c rib in g c on d itio n s inN o. 10

- 1932 11 Paki sta n i n 200 1 that be cam e a vai l abl e a fter the hear i ng. If the g ove rnm ent in pow eri n 200 9 has a pol i cy ofper secut i nga c er tain g r o up, f o re xa m pl e, o ne c anpo i nto ut w hen that gr oup too k ove r. I f i t w as som e ti m e after 2001 , thatwould be ev i dence supporting a fi nd i ng o f changed ci rcum sta nces. W e re adi l y a ckno wl edg e th atthe r e i s no th i ngwro ng i n pri nci ple with c i rcum sta nti alev i denc e ofchange d circum stan ces. Th e prob lem f or M oosa is that h e r circ ums t a nti a le v i de nc e wa s i nc o mpl e t e . S he s ub mi t t e d a 20 09 S ta te De par tment tr av elwar ni ngtha t m i l i ta nt gr oups pro m i sed to “s tep up att ac ks ag ai nst b oth ci vi l i an and g ov er nm ent t ar get s in Paki sta n’s ci ti es, ” a nd that r epo r te d o n e ve nt s tr an spi r i ng“ i n the l as t 14 months

. ” S he a l s o s ub mi t t e d a 2 0 0 8 S t a t e De pa r t men t hu manr i ghts re portthati ncl ud es bro ader back gr ound inf or m ati on on chang es in how Paki sta ni wom en have bee n tr eated o ve rthe pa stde cad e; in 2 00 6, f o re xa m pl e, the g o ve r nm en t p ass ed the W om en’ s Pr ote cti on Act, wh i ch preve n te d “K or an ic p u n ish m en ts ” fo r v i o l at ion s o f Sh ar ia law “ i nc l udi nga m put at i o n a nd de ath b y s to ni ng . ” But th is e vid en c e s til l f a ils to p ro vid e a ba se lin e fo r c om p ar ison. S om ethi ng l ike a S tat e Depart m ent r epor t fro m 20 02 w ou ld h av e q u ali f i e d a s e vid en c e t h at w as u n av ailabl e in 200 1, ye t i t co uld have furni shed a b as is fo r fi nd i ng tha t m att er s were changi ng f orthe w or se. E ve n if w e w er e t o fin d th at th e B oa rd ga ve in s u ffic i en t w eig h t t o th e c irc u m st an tia l ev id en c e M oo sa d id pr es en t, we woul d s ti l lha ve t o r ej ec t M o o sa ’ s pet iti on. T h e B o a r d ’ s a l t e r n a t e g r o u n d f o rd e c i s i o n l i e s c o m-12 N o. 10

- 1932 f or tably withi n i ts disc re ti on. In fi nd i ng tha t M oo sa f ai l ed to p re se n t a prim a faci e case f or asylum , the B oard poi nted out that sh e subm i tte d evi dence onl y o fbr oad soc i alst ri fe in Paki sta n

— that i s, the ri se ofthe Tal iban and the adopti on o fSh ar i a l aw

— w h ich oc c u rre d n ea rly 90 0 m i l es awayfr o m he rho m et o wn o fKar ac hi

. On th e bas is o f t h ese facts, the B oard f ou nd that M oosa’s as se rt ed fea r of p er se c u ti o n o n t h e b as is of b ein g a sin gle W est er ni zed wom an in Pak i sta n w as too specul ati ve to w arran t reli ef. T he reason s cited b y t h e B oard and i ts con clusion s are consi ste nt with ou r re peated r em i nd erthat“g ener al c on d itio n s o fh a rd sh ip th at affe c t e n tir e p op u lat ion s . . . ar e no t per secuti on. ” A hm ed v . G o nz a les , 46 7 F
. 3d 669, 6 7 3 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ; s e e a l so S h a r i f v . INS , 87F. 3d 932, 93 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) ( “[ H ] ar sh co nd i ti ons shar ed by an enti re popula ti on do no t a m ount t o perse cuti on. N or does pu ni shm en t w hi ch r esul ts fro m vi ol ating a c o u n t r y ’ s l a ws o fg e n e r a la p p l i c ab i l i ty, ab s e n ts o me showing that the punis hm ent i s be i ng adm i ni ste re d fo r a nef ariou s p urpose . ”)
. On a di ffer ent, m or e par ti cula ri zed r eco rd, the Board m ay w ell com e t o the o pp osi te c o nc l us i o n. W e ar e o bv i o us l y no t sa y i ngtha t g enui ne pr o bl ems do no t ex i stf o rwomen l i ke M oosa. But th e re sp on sib ility for d ra w in g lin es h er e lies p rim ar ily wi th th e Bo ar d, whi ch ca n ac t o nl y o n th e facts put bef or e i t. W e no te fi nal l y that in re achi ng i ts concl us ion r egard ing her pr i ma faci eca se for a sy lu m , th e B oa rd d id not disc uss M oo sa’ s a ffi davit. I t co m pla i ned that M oo saN o. 10

- 1932 13 did n ot re ferto “s peci fi c pass age s” that m i ght c or robor ate her asy l um cl ai m . I fthe Board had, as M oo sa all ege s, i gnor ed i m port ant parts ofherev i dence, we m i ght b e concerned. But ourr evi ew sa ti sfie s u s that thi s i s no t a case wh ere the Boar d com ple tel y i gnor ed the substa nce ofM oo sa’ s a rgum ent r egardi ng herel i gibi l i ty f oras ylu m . Th e fa c t t h at it d id n otsin gle ou t h e r affid av it f o rd i s c u s s i o n i s n o te n o u g h t o u n d e r mi n e i t s d e c i s i o n. Se e, e . g. , K uc a na v. Ho lder, 603 F.3d 3 94, 395-97 (7th C ir. 2 0 1 0); Z ha o v. G o nz a les , 44 0 F
. 3d 405, 40 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( per cu r i am ). A ccor dingl y, M oo sa’ s peti ti on forr evi ew i s D ENI ED .

5- 5- 11