W e s ub st itute Eric H
. H older, J r. , the curre nt Attor ney G eneral 1 ofthe U ni t ed St at es , as the R es ponde nti n thi s ac t i on. See F e d. R. A p p . P . 43 (c)(2 ). 

## 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. 08

- 2834 M UGHAL M UHA MMAD I S HI T I AQ, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, 1 R es pond ent
.

Peti tionfor Revi ewof anOr de rof the B o ard of Immigration App eals
.

No . A 95-925- 134
A RG UE D M AR CH 30, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 25, 2009

B efore K ANN E , W OO D , an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . M ughalM uham m ad I shi ti aq see ks re vi ew o fa fi nalo rdero fthe B oa rd o fI m m i gr ati on A pp eal s, wh i ch f ound I shi ti aq st atuto ri l y ineli gibl e for2 N o. 08

- 2834 asy l um , deni ed hi s a pp l i cati on s f orwithhol ding of re m ova land re l i efunder the Conventi on A gainst Torture, and or dered hi m r em ove d fr om the U ni ted St ate s. W e di sm i ss I shi ti aq’ s a syl um pet i ti on be cause we l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w i t, a n d we d e ny t he peti ti on f or re vi ew as to hi s w i thhol ding of rem ova l and C A T cl ai m s beca use the deci si on was supporte d by substa nti alev i dence.

I . B AC KGR OUND M ughalM uham m ad I shi ti aq, a Sunni M u sli m , was bo r n in P ak i st ani n 1 96 8. Hi s f athe r w as a m embe r o fthe re l i gi ous g ro up kno w n as Jam at- E-I sl am i
. I shi ti aq was nevera m em ber, al though he did hel p his f atherwith som e of th e grou p ’s charitable activities. A fter I sh iti aq ’s f atherbec am e a m em b er o fJ am at- E-I sl am i, i t turned f r o m a b e ne v o l e nto r g a ni z a t i o n t o a t e r r o r i s tg r o up . W hen I shi ti aq was i n h i gh sc hool, he was appro ached by t wo me n wh o t o l d h i m th a th e mu s tj o i n th e g r o up and tr ain as a fi ghteri n a J i had cam p. I shi ti aq di d not j o i n, a n d , a s a r e s u l t, i n D e c e mb e r 1 9 8 6 , J a ma t
- E

- I s l a mi m embe r s sh o t at, b utdid n o t i nj ur e, hi m . Thr ee months l at er, in Fe br ua r y 1 98 7, I sh i ti aqwas k i dna pped an d b ea te n by so m e o f th e s am e m en f r o m Jam at -E -Isla m i. H e was ta ken t o a defense ar ea and hel d for s everaldays, bute sc ape d. I sh i ti aqthe n b o ar ded a sh i p t o I st anbul and tra vel ed ab road as a s eam an f orthe next te n yea rs , o c c a s i o na l l y r e t urningh o me to P a k i s t a n t o v i s i tfr i e nd s and fa m i l y. I s h i t i a qr e pat r i a t e d t o P a k i s t a n i n J a n u a r y 2 0 0 0
. He l e a r ne d tha tJ a mat
- E- I s l a mi me mbe r s a nd i nfo r man tsN o. 08

- 2834 3

w ere li ving in th e area w h e r e he sta yed
. H e, his w ife an d ch ild r e n h id atth e h om e o f a frie n d . InA p ril 20 00 , a g r o up o fa r med me n c ame t o the fr i e nd ’ s h o me, b l i nd

f ol ded I shi ti aq, and drov e hi m to a house w here the y a l l e g e dl y b e a th i m. I s hi t i a q a gai n e s c a pe d a nd ma de h is w ay to th e A m er ica n E m b as sy . H e a p p lied for a vis itor ’ s v i sa and cam e to t h e U ni ted S tat es on S eptem ber20 , 2000
. A fterI shi ti aq ov er sta ye d his vi sa i n the U ni ted S t a t e s , r e mova lp r o c e e di ng s b e g a n i n M a r c h 2 0 0 3
. On Decem ber2, 20 03, I shi ti aq fi l ed an app lica ti on f or as y l um , wi thho ldi ngo fr emov ala nd r el i efunde r the Conventi on A gainst Tor ture ( “CA T”). On October1, 20 07, afterthe I m m i gr ati on J ud ge ( “IJ ”) pre sid in g over hi s ca se had gra nted I shi ti aq se ver alco nti nuances, t h e IJ deni ed Ish itia q ’s p et itio n for a sy lu m , w ith h old in g of re m ov al, an d pr o te ct i o n und er th e CA T i n a n o r alde ci si o n. The IJ f ound that I shi ti aq had not fi l ed h is ap pli cati on f or as ylu m bythe one- yea r deadli ne, and no c hanged or ex c ep tio n al c irc u m st an c es j u st ifie d rec on sid er in g h is appli cati on. The IJ al so deter m i ned that I shi ti aq w as not el i gibl e forwithhol ding ofr em ova lbec au se he had faile d to sh ow eith er th e e x ist en c e o f p a s t o r th e like lihood o ffuture perse cuti on o n acco unt ofhi s r el i gi on orpol i ticalo pini on. A dd i ti onal l y, the IJ deter m i ned that the 2 000 eve nt was m ore “q uesti onabl e” and concl ud ed that because I shi ti aq di d n ot gi ve a deta i l ed descr i pti on ofthatenco unter hi s t est i m ony w as not cre dibl e. Fi nal l y, be ca us e I sh i ti aq fai l ed to meetthe s ta nda r d f o r wi th

ho l di ngo fr emov al, the IJ de ni ed hi m re l i efunde r the4 N o. 08

- 2834

mor e s t r i ng e nts t a nd a r d fo r CA T pr o t e c t i o n. T he IJ di d, how eve r, al l ow vol untarydepartur e. I shi ti aq appeal ed the IJ ’ s rul i ng to the B oar d ofI m m i gr ati on Ap peal s ( “BI A ”)
. On Ju n e 27, 20 08, the BIA affi rm ed the IJ ’ s rul i ng i n an or der, re l yi ng on th e IJ’s d ete rm i nati o ns o ff ac t an d l aw. I sh i ti aqpe ti ti o ns f o r r ev i ew ofthe BI A’s de ci si o n.
II. A N A L Y S IS W e r ev i ew the IJ ’ s dec i si o n a s su ppl emented b y the B IA ’s a n aly sis
. Se e Kris hnap i l l ai v. H o lder, 56 3 F
. 3d 606, 615 ( 7th Cir
. 2009 )
. W e gi ve defe re nce to the IJ ’ s fa c tu al d e t e r mi n a t i o n s , a n d we u p h o l d th e d e c i s i o n i f i ti s s up p or te d b y s u b st an tia l ev id en c e. Se eIngmanto r o v. M uk a sey, 550 F.3d 646 , 649 (7th C ir. 2008). W e w il l overturn the BI A ’ s deci si on o nl y i f“the r eco rd c om p els a contr ar y r esul t. ” M a ba sa v . Go nz a les , 45 5 F
. 3d 740, 74 4 ( 7th C i r. 20 06) ( quoti ng B rucaj v. A shcroft, 3 8 1 F
. 3 d 6 0 2, 60 6 (7th C ir. 2004)).

A . I shit i aq’s asyl um appli cat i on The I m m i gr ati on a nd N ati onal i ty A ct ( “I N A ”) defi nes a “ re fugee” as a perso n w ho i s unabl e o r u n w illi ng to retu rn t o his native cou nt ry “beca us e of p ersecu tion or a w el l

- f ounded fearo fper secuti on o n acco unt ofr ace, re l i gi on, nati onal i ty, m em ber shi p i n a p ar ti cul arso ci al gr oup, o r pol i ticalo pini on. ” See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1101(a)(42)( A ). A n as ylu m ap p lica n t m u st sh ow a n ex u s b et w ee n h isN o. 08

- 2834 5 fearo ffuture perse cut ion a nd o ne o ftho se fi ve prot ec te d gro u n d s. See To rres v. M uk a sey, 5 5 1 F
. 3 d 6 1 6 , 62 9 (7th C ir. 2008). A n al i en wh o i s physi cal l y pr es ent in the U ni ted S tat es an d s e e k s a s y l u m mu s ts h o w b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n ci ng evi dence thatthe asy l um appli cati on has bee n fi l ed w ith inon e y ea r aft er th e d at e th e im m igr an t a rriv ed in the Unite d Sta tes . 8 U
. S. C. § 1 158( a) ( 2)(B ); O gayon nev. M uk a sey, 53 0 F
. 3d 514, 51 9 ( 7th Ci r. 200 8). A n appli cati on fi l ed afterthe deadli ne m ay be c onsid er ed ifthe al i en “dem onst ra tes to the sa tisf acti on o fthe A tto rneyGenera l ei therthe exi ste nce ofchange d ci rcum sta nces w hi ch m at er i al l y a ffect the a ppl i ca nt ’ s el i g ibi l i tyf o r a sy l um orextr aor dinar y c i rcum sta nces re l ating to the del ay i n fi l i ng an appli cati on. ” 8 U
. S. C. § 1 158( a) ( 2) ( D); See O gayon ne, 53 0 F
. 3d at 519. Court s do not h av e j uri sdict ion t o re vi ew ei therthe deter m i nati on that a n ali en ’s asylum ap p li cation w as u nt im ely or th e d et e rm i nati on that the be l ate d fi l i ng was not j usti fi ed b y c ha ng e d o r e xt r a o r di na r y c i r c ums t ance s . 8 U. S
. C. § 1 15 8(a )(3) ; see als o G h a ffa r v. M uk a sey, 55 1 F
. 3d 651, 65 4 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ); Ka ha rud in v . Go nz a les , 50 0 F
. 3d 619, 62 3 ( 7th Cir
. 20 07)
. W e m ay re vi ew “co nsti tuti onalcl ai m s o r que st i o ns o fl aw” unde r 8 U. S
. C. § 1 25 2( a) ( 2) ( D) , b ut “dis cre ti ona ry o r f actualdeter m i nati ons continue to fal l ou t s ide th e j urisd iction of th e cou rt of ap p eals ente rtaini ng a peti ti on f orr evi ew . ” O gayon ne, 53 0 F.3 d at51 9 ( q u ot i ng V

a sile v. G o nz a les , 417 F.3d 766 , 768 (7th C ir. 2005 ) )
. The BIA’s f actual deter m i nati on that an al i en f ai l ed to fi l e hi s as y l um a ppl i cati o n wi th i n o ne y ea r a nd t h e b o a r d ’ s d e c i s i o n th a th e d o e s n o tqu a l i fy f o r a t i me ex te n sio n are u n re vie w ab le. Id.6 N o. 08

- 2834 The IJ found, and Is hi ti aq d oes n ot dispute, thatI shi ti aq enter ed the U ni ted S tat es on S eptem ber20 , 20 00 , with a v isit or ’s v isa w ith t h e p er m iss ion to rem ain u n til M ar ch 19, 20 01, but did notfi l e hi s a pp l i cation f or asy l um unti lDecem ber2, 20 03, wellbey ond the o ne - yea r deadli n e. The BIA affi rm ed thi s fi nd i ng, and w e m ay no t r ev i ew thi s det er m i na ti o n. I shi ti aq ar gues, however, that the IJ and BI A co m m i tte d a r evi ew abl e e rr oro fl aw byapply i ng the “chang ed ci rcum sta nces” provi si ons of§ 1158 ( a) ( 2) ( D) t o ear l i er events a ffecting I shi ti aq’ s abi l i ty to fi l e o n ti m e r ather th a n fu t u r e e v e n t s o c c u r r i n ga ft e r t h e o n e - y e a r f i l i n gt i me fra m e. Th e “change d ci rcum sta nces” to w hi ch I shi ti aq re fer s a re the decl ar ati on ofm ar ti all aw i n Paki sta n on N ove m ber3, 20 07, and the assa ss i nati on o ff or m er Pri m e M i ni ste r Benazi r Bh utto on Decem ber27, 20 07. Th e IJ di d n o tb e l i e v e the s e e v e nt s de mon s t r a t e d a ch an ge in cou nt ry cond iti ons m aterial to I sh iti aq ’s as y l um a ppl i ca ti o n. The BI A re affi r m ed thi s fi ndi nga nd s t a te d : “M or eo ve r, th es e e ve n ts d o n otse rv e t o e x p lain or ex c u se h is d ela y in w ait in g t o file h is a p p lica tio n u n til Decem ber20 03, i nasm uch as th ese two ev ents occur re d som e 4 ye ar s a

fterh e fi l ed hi s asyl um appli cati on. ” I shi ti aq ar gues that the BI A m i sund er sto od th e regula ti on by re quir i ng the change d ci rcum sta nces to exp lai n hi s l ate fi ling, rather th an “m ateriall y affect [i n g ] th e ap p li can t’s el i gibi l i ty f oras yl um ” a s § 11 58( a) ( 2) ( D) s tat es. W e fi nd no er ro r ofla w . The BI A pro perl y r eco gni zed that I shi ti aq f ail ed to expl ai n how the decl ar ati on of m ar tia l law an d B h u tt o’s as sa ss i n at ion affe c te d h isN o. 08

- 2834 7 el i gibi l i ty f oras yl um . Because a quest i on o ff act oran ap p li cation of law to f act regard ing the extra o rd inary orchange d ci rcum sta n c es excepti ons does not ra i se a leg al c laim , w e c an n otrev iew it. See Vir a c a c h a v. M uk a sey, 518 F. 3d 511, 51 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( fi nd i ng tha t chang ed countr y con dit i ons occur ring afterthe deadli ne f or ti m el y fi l i ng were not m ate ri al, and the IJdi d not m ake a l eg almis ta k e i n a r r i vinga t th atc o nc l us i o n). A s to the BIA’s add i ti onalr eas on that these tw o eve nts di d not affec t I sh i ti aq ’ s appl icati o n b ec au se the y o cc ur r ed f o ur ye ar s aft erhe fi l ed f oras yl um , we bel i eve the BIA w as addr es singthe “ ex tr aor di na r y c i r cumst an ce s” e xc ept i o n. See 8 U. S
. C. § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D) ( a n a s y l um a pp l i c ati on filed aft er th e o n e-y ea r d ea d lin e m a y b e c on sid er ed if the a pp l i ca nt s ho ws “ e xt r a o r dinar y c i rcum sta nces re lat in g t o th e d ela y in filing an ap p lica ti o n ”). T h e B IA w as expla i ni ng tha t the decl ar ati on of m ar ti all aw di d not ex c u se Ish itia q ’s la te filing, th e o n ly ot h er p os sib le b as is for find in g Ish itia qst at u to rily e ligib le for as ylu m . See 8 C. F
. R. § 1 20 8. 4( a) ( 5)
. The BI A di d n ot m i sa ppr eh en d the r egul ati ons, and I shi ti aq cannoto ver com e th e j uri sdi ct i o na lb ara g ains t r ev i ewi ngdi sc r et i o na r y de cis i o ns by cl oak i ng rati onal e he does not agr ee w i th as a l ega l er ro r. Se eGhaf

f ar, 55 1 F. 3d at 655. Because I shi ti aq di d not r a i s e a c o n s t i t u t i o na lc l a i m o r qu e s t i o n o fl a w, we dism i ss the pet i ti on f orr ev iew ofhi s a syl um appli cati on f o r l ac ko fj ur i sdi ct i o n.
B . I s h i t i a q ’ s wi t h h o l d i n go fr e mo v a l a n d C AT c l a i ms A lth ou gh w e la c k jur is d i c t ion ov er th e a sy lu m ap p lica ti o n, we m ay r ev i ew th e den i al o f I sh i ti aq ’ s w ith-8 N o. 08

- 2834 hol ding ofr em ova land CA T cl ai m s. A n al i en is enti tl ed to w ithh ol ding ofr em ova li fhe c an sho w a “cl earpro bab ility ” t h at h is “ l i f e o r fre ed om w ou ld be th re at en ed
. . . bec au se of the ali en ’s race, reli gion, n a t io na li ty, 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
. § 12 31 (b )(3) (A ); Khan v. Fi lip , 55 4 F
. 3d 681, 69 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. Thi s s tandar d i s m o r e st r i ng en t th anthe as ylu m inq u iry
. SeeSe li m i v. Ashcroft, 3 60 F. 3d 736, 74 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. A n al i en ca n m eetthi s sta nd ar d by sh ow in g that he was subj ect to past per secuti on, wh i ch tr i g g er s a r eb ut tabl e pr es um pti o n o ffuture pe r se cut i o n. 8 C .F.R . § 12 08 .16 (b )(1) ; Kha n , 5 5 4 F .3d at69 0; Ir as ocv. M uka sey , 5 22 F
. 3d 72 7, 7 29

- 30 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. Or, i n the abse nce o fev id en ce o fpast perse cuti on, an a l i en can sh ow thati t i s m or e l i kel y than not that he wil lsuffer p er se c u tio n if re m ov ed . 8 C .F.R . § 12 08 .16 (b )(2) ; Khan , 554 F. 3d at 69 0; B inR a shed v. G o nz a les , 50 2 F
. 3d 666, 67 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. “ Pe r se cut i o n e nt ai l s puni sh m en t o r the i nfl i ct i o n o fha r m f o r po l i ti ca l, r el i g i o us , o r o th err ea so ns that thi s co untry does n ot r ecogni ze as l egi ti m ate . ” Khan , 554 F. 3d at 690 ( quoti ng DeS o u z a v . INS , 9 9 9 F
. 2 d 1 1 5 6, 1158 ( 7th Cir. 1993) (int erna l q u o tation m arks om itted ))
. A n appli cant “ need n ot show that herl i fe o r fre edom w er e thre ate ned, but the harm she suffer ed m u st r i se ab ov e th e leve l of m er e ha ra ss m en t an d m u s t r es u lt fro m m or e t h an u n p le a s a n t or ev en d an ge ro u s c on d iti on s i n herhom e co untry. ” Na k ibuk a v. G o nz a les , 42 1 F.3d 473 , 476 (7th C ir. 2005). H er e, the IJ dete rm i ned that I shi ti aq had not been subj ecte d to past per secuti on o n acco unt ofhi s pol i ti cs or r el i g i o n a nd di d no t es tabl i sha l i k el i ho o d o ffuture pe r s e c ut i o n. R e g a r di ngp a s tp e r s e c ut i o n, the IJ s t a t e d:N o. 08

- 2834 9 I w ou ld sa y t h at w h at li t t l e [Ish itia q ] h as giv en in ter m s o fthe detai l s o ftha t en counteri n A pri lo f 2 0 0 0 , do e s n o te s t ab l i s h tha the w as t o r t ur e d, p e r h a p s, beat en as he said bu t certainly not torture d as that t er m s [ si c ] ha s be end efi ne d i n the d ictionary or even i n case law
. Idon ’ [ si c ] fi nd tha th e h a s b e e n s ubj e c t e d t o p a s tp e r s e c ut i on w hi c h would gi ve ri se to a r eal i sti c l i kel i hood o f m i st r ea tmenti n P ak i st an . I shi ti aq ar gues on a pp ealthatthe IJ com m i tte d l ega ler ro r by deter m i ni ng tha t I shi ti aq had not suffer ed past “pers ecut i o n” b ec au se he ha d no t be en“ to r tu r ed. ” By equa ting thos e tw o ter m s, I shi ti aq ar gues , the IJ pl aced an i m per m i ss ibl y hi g h b ur deno n h i m t o pr o ve pa stpe r se cuti on. Becau se Is hi ti aq co ntends the f actualev i dence co mpe l s the c o nc l us i o n tha th e di d ind e e d s uffe r p ast p ersecu tion, he also assert s tha t the bu rd en shou ld sh ift to th e g ov er n m en t t o r e b u t t h e p re su m p tio n th at h e w ill be pe r se cut ed i fr etur ne d t o Pa k i st an . I shi ti aq’ s a rgum ents f ai lf ors ev er alr eas ons. A s a n i ni ti alm att er, I shi ti aq’ s cl ai m was proce du ra l l y def aul ted whe n he f a i l e d t o r a i s e th e i s s ue b e f o r e the BI A. 8 U. S
. C. § 1 252( d)( 1) ( “A co urt m ay re vi ew a fi nalo rdero f r emov alo nl y i f
. . . the a li en ha s ex ha us te d a l la dm i nistrative rem ed ies available to th e ali en a s ofright ”); Gh a f f ar, 55 1 F
. 3d at 655 ( “The duty to exhaust i ncl ud es th e o bl i g at i o n t o fi r stp resent to the BI A anya r g um en t a g a i n s tth e r e mo v a lo r d e r a s t o w h i c h th e B o a r d i s e mp ow ered to gran t th e ali en m ean ingful rel ief
. ”). Th e fai lure to exhaust m ay be o ver l oo ked o nl y when the al i en r ai ses co ns ti tu ti o na lc l ai m s be ca us e “th e fi na ls ayo n c o ns ti tu
-10 N o. 08

- 2834

The IJc om par ed I s hi t i aq ’ s c as e t o A h m e d v . A sh c ro ft, 94 2 F. App’ x 36 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04 ) ( unpubl i s he d opi ni on) ( det er m i ni ng sub stan tial e v id en ce p ro v ed p ast p ersecu tion b eca u se of his and h i s f am i l y’ s affi l i at i on with h i gh- ra nki ng m em ber s of the P e op l e ’ s P a ki s t a n Pa r t y) , a nd M eg h a niv . INS , 236 F. 3d 843 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 01) ( e vi de nc e tha ta ppl i c a nth a d b e e n be a t e n by m em bers ofopp osi ti on party w as ins uffic ie n t to est ablis h that h e su ffer ed p o lit ic a l p er se cu tio n ). ti onalm atter s r est s with the cour ts. ” Ghaf f ar, 55 1 F
. 3d at 655 ( quoti ng Si ngh v. Re no , 1 82 F
. 3d 50 4, 5 10 ( 7th Cir. 19 99 ) )
. In h i s appe al to th e BI A, I sh i ti aq ’ s ar g um en t r eg ar di nghi s pas t per se cut i o n fo cu sed so l ely o n di st i ngui shi ng his si tuati on fr om that ofthe tw o case s o n w hi ch the IJ r elie d. A l though i t i s cl earthatI shi ti aq di d not 2 w ai ve hi s pastper secuti on a rgum ent, he cer tainl y did not chal l enge the IJ ’ s al l ege d m i sapprehensi on that p ast perse cuti on m ust e quate t o tor ture . Even so, I shi ti aq’ s cl ai m i s withou t su bsta nti ve m er i t. A l though the IJ did sta te that, i n hi s dete rm i nati on, I shi ti aq ha d no t be en“ to r tu r ed, ” we do no t r ea d th e IJ as r equi r i ng to rt u re to es ta b lish p as t p er se c u tio n . Ra th er , th e IJ gave severalval i d rea sons to bol ste r hi s co ncl usi on that I shi ti aq di d not s u fferper secuti on. Fi rs t, I shi ti aq di d not sh ow that the inc iden ts o f w hich he com p lai ne d w ere on a ccount ofhi s pol i ti cs o r re l i gi on. I shi ti aq does not cl ai m to be a pol i ti calact i vi st. Ind ee d , h e conte nd s that J am at- E-I sl am im em ber s t ar get ed hi m i n or der t o re cr uit h im , an d h e d oe s n otarg u e t h at h e r e fu s ed to j oin b ec au se of h is p o l i t ica l op in ion
. Se eIN S v
. Eli as - Zacar i as , 502 U
. S. 47 8, 48 1-8 2 ( 1992 ) ( guer ri l l a g ro up ’ s a tte m pt to r ec r ui t appl i ca nt di d no t ne ce ss ar i l y co ns ti tu te “p er se cu-N o. 08

- 2834 11

For the s am e re as ons I s hi t i aq f ai l ed t o e s t abl i s h pa s tpe rs ec u- 3 tio n o r t he likelih oo d of fu tu re p ersecu tion to m ak e him el igible f or w ithholding of rem o v a l, w e upho ld the IJ ’ s deter- (c on tin u ed
... ) ti o n o n a cc o unt o f po l i ti ca l o pi ni o n” )
. I sh i ti aq pr es en te d no evi dence thathe decl i ned to j oi n J am at- E-I sl am ibecau se of h is p olit ica l v i e w s or th at th e g ro u p ta rg et ed h im be ca us e o fhi s po l i ti ca lo pi ni o n. On the c o nt r ar y, he tes ti fi ed that the gr oup w anted hi m because ofh is yo uth and si ze and t hat he re fused to j oi n beca use he did not w an t to train as a fighte r i n a Ji ha d cam p . N or i s the re any e vi dence thathe f aced per secuti on be cause he was a Su nn iMus l i m. T he IJ a l s o n o t e d tha tS unniMusl i m s, l i k e I sh i ti aq, c o m pr i se 7 7% o fthe Pa k i st an ipo pul at i o n. A s t o the l i kel i hood o ffuture p er secuti on, wh i ch I shi ti aq f ai l ed to ful l y b r i efo n a ppea l, the IJ e xpl aine d tha t th e kidn ap p ing an d beating s in 1987 o c cu rred f ou rteen years b efo re h is a rriv al in t h e U n i te d Sta te s. W e a gr ee th at th is ti m i ng weakens I shi ti aq’s cl ai m o ffuture perse cuti on and al so note thatI shi ti aq r etur ned to Paki sta n sev er al ti m es afterthose i nci dents. M or eov er, the IJ aptl y pointed o uttha tI s hi t i a q’s fat he r, wh o i s a me mbe r o fJ a mat
- EI slam i, rem ains in Pa kistan un ha rm ed ( as d o I sh iti aq ’s w ife, ch ild re n, bro th er s a n d si s t e r s ). S e eTo p t c h e v v . INS , 295 F.3d 714, 722 (7th Cir. 2002). Because the r eco rd was suffi ci ent t o est abl i sh that Ish itia qh ad n otsu ffer ed p as t p er se c u tio n or th e like liho o d o ffutur e per secu tion, we wi l lno t se t as i de th e denia lo fI shi ti aq’ s peti ti on f orwithhol ding ofr em ova l an d pr o te ct i o n un derCAT. 312 N o. 08

- 2834

(
. . . c o ntinu e d) m in a tio n in re g a rd to h is C A T cla im
. S ee8 C. F. R
. § 1208. 16( c) ( 2) ( an app li cant is el igible und er CAT i f“i t i s m ore l ikel y than not that he or s he w ould b e t ortured i frem o v ed ”)
. M oreover, Ishitiaq f ailed to alleg e the Pa k i st a ni g ov ern m en t w ou ld torture him or ac quies ce to hi s torture as needed for protect i onun de r CAT
. See 8 C .F .R
. § 12 08 .18(a)( 1) ( infliction of pa in or s uffer i ng m ee t s d efinit i on oft or t ur e when “i nfl i c t ed by or atthe i ns t i gat i on ofor with the c on s en tor ac qui es c en c e of a p u b lic o ffici a l” ).

8- 25- 09

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Therefor e, we D ISMISSI shi ti aq’ s peti ti on for re vi ew o f h i s a s y l u m c l a i m a nd D EN Ythe peti ti on f orr evi ew o f hi s withhol ding ofr em ova land CA T cl ai m s.