## 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. 12

- 2456 G H U L A M M UST AFA, etal. , P etitio ners, 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 of the Bo ard of Immigration App eals

. No s. A98-139- 201; A 98-139- 256; A 98-139- 257; A 98-139- 258 &A 98-139- 259
A RGUED J AN UA RY 18, 2013

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 11, 2013

B efore P OSNER, F LA UM, an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . G h u l am M u st afa an d h is fa m ily see k r evi ew o fa deci si on o f t h e B oar d ofI m m i gr ati on A pp eal s in w hi ch the Board a ffi rm ed the i m m i gr ati on j udg e’ s d e n i a lo fth e i ra p p l i c a t i o n s f o ra s y l u m a n d wi thho l di ngo fr emov al

. M us ta f a, a c i ti ze n o fPa k i st ana nd m em b e r of th e N aw az fac tio n of th e P ak ist an i M u slim League pol i ti calp ar ty ( “PM L-N ”) , fi l ed an appl i cati on2 N o. 12

- 2456 f oras yl um and w i thhol ding of re m ov alo n the basi s that he fe a r s i f he we r e t o r e t urn t o Pa k i s t a n, he would be tar get ed f or having co oper ate d w i th the o pp osi ti on g overnm en t unde rGe ne r alPe r ve z M us ha r r afb y pr o vi di ng i nfo rm ation a bout the fi nanci alaff ai rs o fhi s for m er em p loyer, w ho is also a form er Pakistan i Se n a tor. I n a ffi r mi ngthe i mm i g r a t i o n j ud g e ’ s de ni a lo fthe a ppli cati on, the Board e xpla ined that M ustaf a co uld not estab li sh a fear of futu re pers e c u t io n on accou nt of a prot ecte d statutor y g ro und

. Instea d, the Board co ncl ud ed that the threa ts and atta cks M ustaf a had exper i enced bef or e co m i ng to the U ni ted S tat es w er e m oti vate d so lely by a p e rs on al d isp u te be tw ee n M u st afa an d h is f o r m erb o ss a nd tha t he ha d no t sh o wn th atthe c ur r en t go ve rn m en t w ou ld p er se c u te h im on ac c ou n t o f h is m em bersh ip in the PM L -N
. W e grant t h e M us tafa f am i l y’ s peti ti on f orr evi ew and re m and the ca se f orfurtherpro ceedi ngs because the concl usi on that M us tafa’s att a ckers w ere m otivated solel y by a d esire for p e r s o n al re ve n ge is u n su p p or te d by su b st an tia l ev ide nc e i n the r e c o r d.

I . B a c kg r o und A. F a c t ua l B a c kg r o und M us ta f a, a f o r ty
- ei g ht

- y ea r-o l d c i ti ze n o fPa k i st an, a nd h is fam ily en te re d th e U n ite d St at es leg ally as n o n -im m igran t visi tors in N ovem ber 2003

. T h e M us tafas w ere author i zed to sta y i n the U ni ted St ate s unti l M ay 27, 2004
. Tw o days be f or e the e x p ira ti on o fhi s v i sa, M us ta f a fi l ed ana ppl i ca ti o n fo ra sy l um a nd wi thho l di ngN o. 12

- 2456 3

M us t af a’ s wife is a f or t y- thr ee - ye ar - ol d nat i ve and c i t i ze n o f 1 Paki s t an. T he coupl e has thr ee c hi l dre n who a re c i t i ze ns of Pakist an and w ho are c urrentl y eighte en, s ix tee n, and fourteen ye ars o ld

. M u stafa an d his w ife also ha v e an eigh t-yea r-old dau gh ter w ho w as born in Chicago in 2004, w ho is a c it ize n ofthe U nit ed Stat es , and w ho is not partofthe irrem oval p ro ceed ing s. ofr em ova l, as ser ti ng tha t he fear ed re turni ng to Pakist an bec au se he b el i ev ed he woul d b e ta r g et ed f o rha ving provi ded the M usharr afgo ver nm ent with info rm ati on about the fi nanci alaff ai rs o fa fo rm erPaki sta ni S enator
. M ustaf a’ s w i fe and three ofthe coupl e’ s m i norchi l dren wer e na m ed as de r i va ti ve s o n the a ppl i ca ti o n. 1

1. M ustaf a’ s L if e i n P akist an and t he U nit ed A r ab Em i r at es I n the affi davi t he att ached to hi s asy lu m appli cati on and du ring hi s hea ring, M ustaf a s tat ed that he has been an act i ve m em bero fthe PM L-N sinc e 1 988 w hen he was a s tudent at the Unive rs i ty ofPunj ab in Lahore , Punjab, Pak i s t a n. Aft e rg r a du a t i ng, Mus t a f a mo v e d t o A bu Dhabi, Uni te d Arab Em i r at es ( “UA E”)
. In 1 99 6, S ai fur Re hm an, a hi g h- r an k i ngm embe rofthe PM L- N and s o o nto -b e P ak ist an i se n at or, h i re d M u st afa to w or k for h im a s the P ub l i c R e l a t i o ns Offi c e ra tR e dc o AlS uwa i di Ready M i x ( “Redco”) , Rehm an’ s co nstr ucti on business i n the U A E. I n additi on t o m anaging dai l y a ssi gnm ents and em plo yee r el ati ons at Redco, M ustaf a a ssi ste d Re hm anwi ths ev er alt r an sfer s o f funds

. On o ne o cc as i o n,4 N o. 12

- 2456 Rehm an di re cted M ustaf a to transferei ghtee n m i l l i on dol l ar s in m ult i ple tr ansact i ons fro m Ci tibank i n N ew Yorkto M ashr aq Bank in N ew Yor k a nd u lti m ate l y t o Abu Dhabi

. Be ca us e ofRe hm an ’ s po l i ti ca lpo wera nd hi s cl o se a ss o ci at i o n wi thNawaz S ha r i f, the l ead er of th e PM L- N , M us ta f a di d not a ska ny que st i o ns abo ut th e trans fer. I n 1 99 7, the PML

- N wonthe pa r l iam en ta r y e l ec ti o ns in Pak istan an d Sharif took c om m an d as Prim e M inister. Dur i ngthe s hi ft i n po wer, Re hm anwas elec te d t o the Pa k i st an iS en ate, a nd he s er ve d a s th e ch ai r m ano fthe N ati onalA ccountabi l i ty Bu re au ( “N A B ”) , an a gency cr ea te d t o i nv es ti g at e an d pr o secute pub l i c co r r upt i o n. Aft e rth e e l e c t i o n s , R e h ma n t o l d Mu s t a f a th a tt he Paki sta ni Inter
- Se rv i ces Intel l i gence A gencywould be m o ni to r i nga l lo fM ustaf a’ s te l eph o ne c o nv er sa ti o ns a tR e dc o a s a p a r to fa n i nv e s t i g a t i o n o fthe NAB. Wh en he l ea r ne d o fthe s ur ve i l l an ce , M us ta f a be g anl o o k i ng f o r o t h er w or k, an d h e e ve n tu ally res ign ed from h is posi ti on a t Redco i n 199 8. I n Octobe r 1999 , S hari fat tem pted to re m ove Genera l P e r v e z Mu s h a r r a ffr o m h i s p o s i t i o n a s th e C h i e fo fA r my St aff

. M usharr afr esi ste d and w i th the hel p ofo ther A rm y Gener al s t oo k power ofthe countr y a nd o u st ed Shar i f’ s a dm i ni str ati on. A fterthe co up , the M usharr af gove r nm en t acted qu ickly in arresting form er PM L -N l e a de r s . R e hma n a nd S ha r i fwe r e am on gtho s e de t a i ne d, an d Sharif w en t into exile shortly thereafter. M u st afa rep or ts th at in e ar ly 2 00 0, P ak is t a n i int ell i g e n c e a g e n t s i n th e UAE a p p r o a c h e d h i m a n d i n-N o. 12

- 2456 5

The E xi t Co n tr o l Listi s a bord er- control s yst em m aint ained 2 by the Pakis tani go vernm ent. Pers ons wh ose nam es app ear on the l i s tar e notal l owed t o l ea ve the c ount ry . for m ed h im th at R eh m an h a d e n ga ge d in c or ru p t a c tiv iti es. The ag ents tol d M ustaf a that be cause he was a m em bero fthe PM L-N , he wa s re quir ed to co oper ate w i th the M usharr afgo ver nm ent a nd thati fhe refu sed to co op er at e, th er e w ou ld be “t ro u b le” an d h is fa m ily inP ak ist an co u ld be a r r e s te d . Fea rfu l th at h is fa m ily w ou ld be ta rg et ed , M u st afa ag re ed t o p ar tic ip at e in the invest i gat i on a nd pro vi ded the Paki sta ni autho ri ti es w i th i nfo rm ati on about cer tain acco unt s an d l ar ge fin an c ial tr a n sa c tio n s h e h ad ov er se en atR ed c o. In A ugust 2 000, M ustaf a r etur ned to Pakist an i n accor dance w i th the go ver nm ent’ s r equest and provi ded furtheras si sta nce in the i nvest i gat ion. I n additi on t o as k i ngabo utRe hm an’ s aff ai r s atRe dco , the g o ve r nm ent quest i oned M ustaf a about a r el ati onshi p between Rehm an’ s w ife an d Shar i f

. W hen M ustaf a r efused to an swe rque st i o ns abo utRe hm an ’ s per so na ll if e, the go ve rn m en t p u t M u st afa ’s n am e o n P ak ist an ’s E x it C o n t ro l L ist
. C on c er n ed on c e a ga inth at h is fa m ily 2 w ou ld be h arm ed i f he refuse d t o c oop erate, M us tafa ult i m ate ly agr eed to answer the go ver nm ent’ s questio ns. Once the gov er nm ent o ffi ci al s were sat i sfi ed w i th his as si st an ce , the y r emov ed M us ta f a’ s na m e fr o m the l i s ta nd a l l o we d h i m t o r e t urn t o the UAE. U p on th e com p leti on of the inve stigation, the M us ha rra fgo vernm ent pr ose cuted Reh m an o n cor rupti on6 N o. 12

- 2456 ch ar g es a nd s en te nc ed hi m to f o ur te eny ea r s i n pr i so n. Aft er r ea ch i ng an appa r en t ag r ee m en t wi th th e g o ve r nm en t, h ow ev er , Re h m an w as rel e a s e d from j ail in 20 02
. W h e n R eh m an ret u rn ed to th e U A E follow in g h is re lea se , a R e d c o e m p loy ee ca lled M u st afa an d to ld hi m “Rehm an would n ever f or gi ve [ hi m ] and he was g oing to g et[ hi m ] f o rha vingt al k ed to the NA B abo ut hi s a ff ai rs . ” Afte r re cei vi ng thi s ca l l, M ustaf a went to R eh m an ’s fa c t o r y t o e x p lain w h y h e h ad as sis te d in the invest i gat i on. R eh m an di sag re ed w i th the expl anat i o n a n d i n r e s p o n s e th r e a t e n e d Mu s t a f a , te l l i n gh i m, “y ou kn ow m y p ow er s. I w as ru n n in g t h e c ou n tr y. I w as eq u al t o [th e] p rim e m in ist er in P ak ist an an d

. . . I cou ld

. . . w ip e y ou u p in a m in u te .” I n Feb ruar y 2 003, M ustafa re cal l s that the carhe was dri vi ng i n the U A E w as tr apped betw een tw o tr ucks a n d th a tth e t r u c k s we r e o fth e t y pe us ed b y R e d c o . He b elie ve s t h at R eh m an or h is a ss oc iat es t r i ed to kill him by m aking i t l oo k l i ke an acc i dent, wh i ch he r epor ted to be a c o m m o n o cc ur r en ce i n c o unt r ies l i k e Pa k i st ana nd the UA E. A lth ou gh M ustaf a r epor ted the acc i dent to th e po l i ce , he do es no t be l i ev e th atthe po l i ce t ook a ny action. Instea d, shor tl y a fterthe acci dent occ urr ed, thr ee pla i ncl othe s pol i cem en cam e t o hi s ho use, to l d him that i t wa s n o t s a fe f o r h i m t o r e ma i n i n th e UAE , a nd i nfo rm ed hi m thathe was “pl aying wit h fi re . ” Afte r th i s c o n fr o n t a t i o n, Mu s t a f a r e p o r t s h e w a s f o l l o we d, ha r as se d, a nd qu es ti one d f o rs ev er almonths unt i lhe eve ntual l y deci ded to e sc ape the to rm ent a nd m ove backto Paki sta n w i th the r esto fhi s f am i l y.N o. 12

- 2456 7 Bu t the har ass m ent c ontinued . W hen M ustaf a a rr i ved inP ak ist an in A u gu st 20 03 , his br ot h er rec eiv ed a ca ll from Reh m an ’s b r oth er, A tiki r, i nq uiring into M us tafa’s w he reabou ts. R eferri ng to M us tafa, A tiki r said, “[h]e b e t r a y e d my b r o the r. . . . He p a s s [ e d] thi s i nfo rm ati on on to [the govern m en t] a n d d u e to this action, w e w ere i n tr oubl e s o w e want to ge t revenge . ” Altho ugh M u st afa ’s b ro th er to ld A tik ir th at M u st afa w as st ill l i vi ng so m ew here i n t he U A E, Rehm an’ s a sso ci ate s located M us tafa in P a kistan

. On Oc tober 5, 2003, M us tafa and a fri end w er e dri vi ng in M ustaf a’ s ca r w hen anothe r carpull ed i n fro nt o fthem and bl ock ed them fro m go i ng anyf ar ther

. A gr oup of m en exi ted the car w i th guns and app roached M ustaf a’ s v ehi cl e. The m en drag g e d M us t a f a a nd hi s fr i e nd o ut o f the c a r a nd be at an d k i ck ed th em f o rmor e th ant wenty m i nut es . Dur i ng th e attac k, th e m en accu sed M u s t afa of being a “tra itor” an d told him not to cross R eh m an e v e r again. M us tafa l ostco nsci ousness afterb ein g hiti n the head and w as tak en to a hospi talf ortr eat m en t. H e r ecei ved se ven st i tc he s a nd r emai ne d i n the ho spi ta lf o rmor e th ana w eek

. M ustaf a r epor ted the i nci dent to the pol i ce, butthe po l i ce t oo kno a ct i o n. M us ta f a be l i ev es tha t th e Paki sta ni go vernm ent woul d neverpro tecthi m fro m Re hm an ’ s r et r ibut i o n. F o l l o w ing the b ea ting, M us ta f a r etur ne d b r i efl y t o the U A E to sel lhi s ca r, co l l ect hi s s al ar y, and set tle hi s a cc ounts. H e then tr avel ed to the U ni ted St ate s w ith h is f am i l y b ecause he no l onge r fel t s afe l i vi ng i n ei ther Pa k i st ano rthe UA E. H e re ce i ve d ne ar l y s i x months ofm edi caltr eat m ent a fterar ri vi ng in t he U ni ted S tat es8 N o. 12

- 2456

M ustaf a al so t es ti fie d that the Z a rd a ri gov ernm ent has 3 arranged f or Rehm an’ s arres t throug h the Int er nati onal C ri m in a l P o lic e O rg a n iz a tio n (“I N T E R P O L ” ). to ass i st w i th the m em or y l oss a n d speech di sor der that he experi enced after the beat i ng. H e re m ai ns an act i ve m em bero fthe Ch i cago c h ap tero fthe PM L-N and w or ks to supp or t hi s f am i l y.

2. Curr ent G ove rnm ent i n P akist an I n 2 00 8, the P aki st anPe o pl e’ s Pa r ty( “P PP” ) a nd the P M L -N d efe at ed G en er al M u sh ar ra f’s g ov er n m en t in parl i am entar y e l ecti ons. The PPP and th e PM L-N f or m ed a co al i tion g ove rnm ent a nd i ni ti ate d i m peachm ent pr oc ee d in gs ag ain st G e n er al M u sh ar ra f, w h o e ve n tu ally resigned

. Th e PM L -N then l eft the co a li tion bec au se of a disa gr eem ent o verwh ether t o re i nstat e j ud ges r em ove d by GeneralM usha rra f. A si fA l iZardar i, a m em bero f the PPP, was el ecte d a s the ne w pre si dent ofPaki sta n inSep te m b er 20 08 , s h o r t ly a fte r th e a ss as sin at ion of h is wi fe, Be na zi rBhut to
. M usta f a te st i fi ed athi s he ar i ng th at th e P L M -N p lay s a n im p or ta n t ro le in cu rre n t P ak ista ni pol i ti cs a nd hol ds the seco nd gr eat estnum b er ofparl i am entar y s eat s. H e a l so tes ti fi ed that Rehm an is curr entl y l i vi ng i n Qatarand that ther e i s a n outsta nd i ng warr ant forR ehm an’ s a rr esti n Paki sta n relating to his treatm en t of Z ard ari w hile the PM L -N w as in p ow er in 1 99 9. M u st afa f e a rs if h e a n d h is 3 fam ily w er e t o re tu rn to P ak ist an , Re h m an or h is as s o c i a t e s wo ul d p e r s e c ut e the m i n fur the rr e t r ib ut i on f orhi s a ssi sta nce t o the M usharr afgo ver nm ent.N o. 12

- 2456 9 3. Sup port i ng D ocum enta ry Ev i den ce I n supp or t o fhi s a syl um appli cati on, M ustaf a s ubm i tte d an affi davi t fro m Dr. Karen Par ker, an a tto rney speci al i zi ng i n i nter nati onall aw wh o has s tudie d human rights i n P ak i st an . In the a ffi dav i t, whi chs he w rote in O ctob er 2007, Dr. Parker su m m arized Pakistan ’s pol i ti calst ructur e, di scusse d the pre va len ce o fhum an rights violati ons , and share d her p ositi on on M u s t a fa’s l i k el i ho o d o ffutur e per se cut i o n in P ak i st an . She e xp lain ed th at m os t m em b er s of th e PM L -N a r e “ h i gh ly l oya lto S hari fand hi s a sso ci ate s, ” a nd thati t i s typi cal for p oli tical p arties to ha ve “th ug s” in p lace t o “carry out retal i ati on a gainst per cei ved enem i es. ” Dr. Par ker expr e s s e d h e rv i e w tha tMus t a f a h a d b e e n a t t a c ked by “thu gs ” fro m the PM L-N and note d that the ty pe of “a tt ac k h e s u ffer ed is ty p ica l of p olit ica l ret alia tio n .” Dr
. P a r k e ra l s o o p i n e d th a tMu s t a f a c o u l d f a c e p e r s e cutio n from th e M u sh ar ra f g o v e rn m en t, w h ich w as st ill i n pow er at the ti m e s he si gned heraffi davi t, o n a c c o u n to fh i s me mb e r s h i p i n th e P ML- N. A l so i nclu d ed i n the re cor d bef or e the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge w ere th e State D ep artm en t’s 2006 an d 2009 cou nt ry c o n d i t i o n s r e p o r t s f o rP a k i s t a n a n d s e v e r a ln e ws ar ti cl es add re ssing the co untry’ s pol i ti cali nstabi l i ty. Both co unt r y r epo r ts i ndi ca te th at co r r upt i o n a m o ngthe pol i ce i s c o mm o n i n Pa k i s t a n. Ac c o r di ngt o the r e po r t s, Pa k i st an ipo l i ce ha ve b ee n kno wn to c ha r g e fee s to i nvest i gat e g enui ne c om pla i nts a nd to acc ept br ibes on behal fo ftho se w i shi ng to avo i d charg es. The re port s al so confir m “pol i ti cal l y m oti vate d ki l l i ngs” perpetr ate d b y “ p olit ica l fac tio n s.”10 N o. 12

- 2456 B . P r o c e dur a l B a c kg r o und The U ni ted St ate s Citi zenshi p and I m m i gr ati on S er vi ce s den i ed M ustaf a’ s appl i ca ti o n fo ra sy l um a nd w ith h old in g of re m ov al a n d ref e rre d h im an d h is fa m ily t o the I mm i g r a t i on C our tf o rr e mov a lp r o c e e di ng s . On October14, 20 04, the Dep ar tm en t o fH om el and Secur i ty fi l ed a Noti ce t o A pp earf oreac h f am i l y m em ber charg i ng the i r re m ovabi l i ty f oro ver sta yi ng the i r peri od ofadm iss ion. On O cto ber11 , 20 05, the M ustaf as appeared be f or e a n i m m i gr ati on j ud ge, and thr ough c ou n se l, c on c ed ed rem ov ab ility

. Fo r re lief fro m rem ov al, ho wev er, M us ta fa r en ewe d hi s appl i ca ti o n fo ra sy l um and request ed w i thhol ding ofr em ova land p ro te cti on unde rthe Con ve nt i o n Agains t To r tu r e ( “CAT”) , c l ai m i ng th at he has a w ell-f ou nd ed fear tha t ifhe w ere to return to Paki sta n, he w oul d b e perse cuted on acco unt of h is m em b e rs h ip in a p ar tic u lar so c ial gr ou p an d h is po l i ti ca lo pi ni o n.

1. I m m i gr at i on J ud ge M ustaf a a pp ear ed i n fro nt o fan i m m i gr ati on j ud ge f or a he ar i ngo n h i s r en ewe d a p p li catio n fo ra sy l um a nd w i thhol ding ofr em ova lo n A pri l1, 20 10. A t the he ari ng, M ustaf a t es tifie d about the har ass m ent he exper i enced i n the UA E a nd in P ak i st ana nd elabo r at ed o n the be atings tha t o cc ur r ed sh o r tly b efo r e he l eft f o rthe Uni te d S tat es . M us ta f a’ s fr i en d, M o ha m m ed Asi f, who w as w ith h im in h is c ar on th e d ay o f th e a tt ac k in Paki sta n cor robor ate d hi s tes ti m ony about the beatings, and M ustafa’s then si xteen- yea r- ol d son M ohab tes ti fi edN o. 12

- 2456 11

The im m igrat ion j ud ge noted two disc repancie s betw een 4 M u stafa’ s testim on y a nd A sif’ s testim on y . B oth m en claim ed to ha v e b een d r i v ing M u stafa’ s car o n th e d ay of the atta ck in Pakist a n, a nd Mus t a f a r e c a l l e d tha tthe i nc i de nto c c ur r ed in October w h ile A si fthought i t happened i n A ugu st
. N everthe l es s , s he e xpl ai ne d thatthe i nc ons i s t en c i es wer e s l i ght (co n tin u ed ...) that he vi si ted hi s f atheri n the hospi talafterthe att ack. W h en p re ss ed by th e im m igr at ion j u d ge to ex p lain th e social grou p of w hich he w as a m e m b e r , M us tafa cl ar i fi ed thr ough co unselthath is cl ai m f oras yl um was b as ed so lely onh is fe ar of p er se c u tio n on ac c o u n t o f h is ac tu alo ri m put ed po l i ti ca lo pi ni o n. At the c o nc l us i o n o fthe t es ti m o ny, the g o ve r nm en t ar gued tha t th e co nfl i ct b etween M ustaf a a nd Rehm an was a pe r so na ldi spu te no t ba se d o n po l i ti ca la ffi l i at i o n. I n r es po ns e, M us ta f a’ s c ouns els ta te d, “ Ye s, y o ur H onor . I t’ s t rue that at the c ore i t invol ves a ve nd ett a between two peopl e, ” but em phasi zed t h at the a tta cks c ou ld n ot b e se p ar at ed from th e p olit ica l co n te x t in w hi ch t h ey o ccurr ed. H e e xplained that gov er nm ents i n P ak i st anus e cor r upt i o n a nd po l i ti ca li nv es ti g at i o ns “to effect harm o n pol i ti calr i va ls” and argued that M ust a f a wa s p e r s e c ut e d o n a c c o un to f“ po l i t i c a lo pi ni on ori m pu ted pol i ti calo pin ion ” forhaving as si ste d in the M usharr afgo ver nm ent’ s pol i ti cal l y m oti vate d i nv es ti g at i o n o fRe hm an . A lthou gh the im m igrati on j ud ge foun d M us tafa’s te st i m o ny t o b e g en er al l y cr edibl e, s he c o nc l ude d tha t he 412 N o. 12

- 2456

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 and di d “no ts i gni fi c ant l y unde rm i ne the pr obat i ve weight ofthe t ot al i t y of[ M us t af a’ s ] t es tim ony, e s pec i al l y i n l i ghtof th e fa ct th a t th e i n ci d en t o cc u rr ed sev en y ea rs ag o .” di d no t sh o w a ne xus betwee n anypas t o rfutur e per se cut i o n a nd a pr o t e c t e d s t a t ut o r y g r o un d. S he no ted that unti lthe M us h ar ra fgo ver nm ent’ s invest i gat i on, Rehm an an d M us t a f a ha d no di s pu t e s o r di s a g r e e men t s ti ed at allto politi cal op in ion and that “w he n M r. Reh m an ’s age nts b eat[ M ustaf a] theyl et hi m kno w thathe was p ayi ngthe pr i ce f o rpr o vi di ngi nf o r m at i o n abo ut M r . R e hma n t o the a utho r i ti es

— n ot beca us e of an y d if

fer ence ofpol i ti calo pini on betw ee n the tw o m en. ” Accord ingly, sh e d eterm ined th at M us tafa’s attac kers w er e m oti vate d s ol el y by a desi re to i nfl ict p ersonal r et r ibut i o n. The i m m i gr at ion j ud ge bri efl y a dd re sse d a por ti on o f D r. P ar ke r’s te st im on y t h at su gg es te d M u st afa co u ld f ace perse cuti on fro m the curr ent Pak i sta ni go ver nm ent, buts he ul ti m at ely g av e i t l i tt l e wei g htb ec au se o fthe chan g e i n po l i t i c a lp o we ri n Pa k i s t a n tha to c c ur re d afterDr. Par kersi gned heraffi davi t: Dr. Parker ’ s t est i m ony sta tes that“Gener alpol i ti cal viol en ce h a s d ram aticall y i nc reased , w ith m em bers o fe spe ci al l y the M us l i m Le ague ( N ) and the PP P po l i t i c a l pa r t i e s b e i ng t a r g e t e d. ” Ho we v e r, that l et te rwas wri tt eni n Oc tobe r2 00 7, whenGe n. M us ha rraf’ s m il itary governm en t w as stilli n p o w er.N o. 12

- 2456 13 Since then, the PM L-N and the PPP h av e r ega i ned p oli tical p ow er. A d m in. R
. at 85-86 (int erna l citations om itted ). Because M ustaf a c ou ld notsa ti sfy the l ower bur den ofpro off orasylu m , the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge concl ud ed th athe di d no t m ee t hi s bur denf o rthe pur po se o fw ithh old in g of re m ov al. T h e im m igr at ion j u d ge als o h eld th atM us ta f a was note nt i tl ed to pr o te ct i o n un derthe CA T b ec au se he di d no t m ee t hi s bur deno fpr o vinghe w oul d “m or e l i kel y tha n n ot” be tor ture d up on r etu r ni ngt o Pa k i st an .
2. Board ofI m m igr ation A p p eals On Septem ber14, 20 10, M ustaf a a pp eal ed hi s ca se to the Boa rd o f Im m i gr ati on Ap peal s. M ustaf a a rgued that th e i m m i g r at i o n j udg e co nc l ude d i nc o r r ec tly tha t th e harm he ha d suffer ed w as sol el y o n acco unt ofa perso nal ven d etta rath er than a politi cal opini o n h is attackers had i m pu ted to hi m . H e cl ai m ed that the Pak i sta ni go ver nm ent use d i nfo rm ati on he ha d provi ded to co nvi ct Rehm an o n cor rupti on char ges , wh i ch i n turn “l ed Re hm ana nd hi s su ppo r te r s an d o th erme m bers ofthe PML- N t o p e r c e i v e [ hi m] a s a ‘ t r a i t o r ’ t o the i rp o l i ti cal par ty
. ” M us ta f a el ab o r at ed th atb y c o o per at i ngi n the i nvest i gat i on, he was s een has havi ng “ass i st[ ed] enem i es o fthe PML

- N i n t ar g et i nga nd s up p ressinga l ea di ng m em b er of th e [ P M L -N ] an d th e Sh ar if gov er n m en t.” M ustaf a a l so ar gued that the i m m igr at i on j ud ge did not u n d er st an d or ev en co n sid er th e d an ge r t h at h e w ou ld14 N o. 12

- 2456 fac e fro m cu rre n t P ak is t a n i P re sid en t Z ar d ar i an d h is f o l l o wer s i fhe wer e to r etur n t o Pa k i st an . T h e Boar d up hel d the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge’ s deci si on an d di smi ss ed M us ta f a’ s appe alo n May 21 , 2 01 2. The B oa rd h eld th at t h e im m igr at ion j u d ge d id n oterr in concl ud i ng tha t M ustaf a’s atta cker s were m oti vate d sol el y b y a desi re f orper sonalr eve nge. Itdeter m i ned th ere w as insu ffici en t evide nc e in the record to sup p ort M us tafa’s c ont en tion th at R eh m an and his f oll ow ers i m pu ted an a nti

- PM L-N p ol i ti calo pini on t o hi m o r th at an y p er c eiv ed an ti-P M L -N p olit ica l o p in ion m ot ivate d the att a c ks. Sp ecifi cally, the B oard f ou nd M us tafa’s at ta ck er s’ us e o fthe wor d “ tr ai tor” to be unc o nv i nc i ng because “[ t] he co ntext o fi ts use s ugges ts
. . . thathe was se ena s be tr ay i ngRe hm anr athe rthan th e par ty : he w as w ar ned n ot t o cro ss Rehm an and to be l oya lto Rehma n. ” F i na l l y, the Bo a r d a g r e e d wi th the De par tm en t o f H om ela n d Sec u rit y t h at M u st afa d i d n o t su ffici en tly a r ti cul at e hi s fea ro fpe r se cut i o n fr o m the curr ent Pak i sta ni go ver nm ent b efor e the i m m i gr ati on j udg e an d tha t he di d no t ade qua te l y e xpl ain why the Z ar d ar i gov er n m en t w ou ld se ek to h ar m h im for h is prior ass oci ati on with Rehm an wh en he coo perat ed w i th the M usharr af g ove rnm ent’ s cr i m i nali nvest i gat i on of R eh m an .
I I . Discussi on On app eal, M u st af a does notchal l enge the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge’ s r uling w i th r espectto hi s e l i gibi l i ty f orpro tecti on under the CA T, so we add re ss onl y hi s c laim s fo rN o. 12

- 2456 15

The At t or ne y Gene ra l s ugge s t s thatwe s houl d li m i tour 5 revie w to the Bo ard’ s decis ion, but the Bo a rd d id not i ss ue a sta n d -a lo n e o p in io n i n th is c a se . S ee L iu v . A sh c ro ft, 380 F. 3d 307, 31 1- 12 (7th C i r. 20 04 )
. I ns t ea d, the Boar d agr ee d with the im m igrat ion judg e’ s findings and concl usi ons and supp le

m en t ed the dec i s i on with a ddit i ona l r ea s oni ng. as y l um a nd s ta tu to r y wi thho l di ngo fr emov al

. Our r ev i ew o fthe Bo ar d’ s den i alo fa sy l um a nd wi th hold in g o fr emov ali s defer en ti al ; w e requi r e o nl y tha t th e dec i si o n b e “s uppo r te d b y r ea so nabl e, sub stant i ala nd proba ti ve evi dence on the r eco rd c on si dered as a who l e. ” B o ci v. G o nz a les , 47 3 F
. 3d 762, 76 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( quoti ng IN S v
. Elias-Z a ca r i as , 502 U
. S. 478, 481 (1992 ))
. W e w il l reverse th e B oard and grant an ap p li can t’s pet i ti o n fo rr ev i ew, ho wev er, whenth e e vi den ce i n the rec or d i s “ so com pel l i ng tha t no r eas onabl e f actfi nd er coul d fa i lto fi nd the re quis i te fearo fper secuti on. ” Bue s oA vil a v. Ho lder, 6 63 F
. 3d 93 4, 9 37( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1) ( quo ting Elia s- Zacar i as , 502 U
. S. at 483-84). W he n th e B oard a do pt s the de ci si ono fthe i mm i g r a t i o n j ud g e a nd s up p le m e n t s t h at d ec isio n w ith its ow n rea so n in g, as it d id here , we re vi ew the i m m i gr ati on jud ge’ s deci si on a s su p p lem en te d by th e B oa rd

. Jo na itiene v . Ho lder, 66 0 F.3d 267, 270 (7th C ir. 2011). 5 To be el i gibl e foras yl um , an a pp li cant m ust s how that h e is “u n ab le or u n w illing to ret u rn ” t o th e c ou n tr y of h is nati onal i ty “bec au se ofper secuti on o r a wel l

- f ounded fea ro fpe r secut i o n o n a cc o unto fr ac e, r el i g i o n, nati onal i ty, m em ber shi p in a part i cul arso ci algr oup, o r po l i t i c a lo pi ni o n. ” 8 U. S
. C. § 1101( a ) ( 4 2 ) ( A)
. An a p-16 N o. 12

- 2456

T he R E A L ID A ct of2 00 5 n ow requ ires an ap p lican t to 6 show that one of the five protect ed ground s w as a “c entr al re a so n ” for h is p er se cu tio n . S ee 8 U. S. C. § 11 58 (b)( 1) ( B) ( i )
. The reco rd i n t h is case ind icates, ho w ev er, that M u stafa fi led his origi nal applic ati on f or asyl um by M ay 25, 2004, and thus, preR E A L ID sta n d a rd s a n d ca se la w ap p ly

. SeeDaw oud v. G on zale s , 42 4 F .3d 608 , 61 3 (7th C ir. 20 05 ) (“T his ru le affects only new as ylum app li cants ( w hose appli cants are fil ed af ter M a y 11 , 20 0 5 ) .
. . .”). pli cant who succes sfully p ro ve s that he w as subj ect to p as t p er secuti on i s pre sum ed to have a w el l

- f ounded fearo ffuture p ersecuti on, wh i ch the A tto rneyGenera l ca n r eb utb y de m o ns tr at i nga cha ng e i n c o ndi ti o ns i n the appli cant’ s ho m e co untry. 8 C.F
. R. § 1208
. 13(b )(1)
. U nd er the m i xe d -m oti ves doctr i ne appli ed by thi s ci rcui t pr i or to t h e e n ac tm en t o f th e R E A L ID A c t, w h ich ap p lies in th is c as e, an ap p lica n t m ay qu a l i fy for a sy lu m if

6 h is p er se c u t o r s h ad m or e t h an on e m ot ive for th eir conduct so l ong as the a pp l i cant dem onst ra tes byei ther d irect or circum sta n t ial eviden ce th at his p ersecu tors we r e “ mo t i v a t e d , a tl e a s tin p a r t, b y o n e o fth e e n u mer ate d gro und s. ” Gjeraz i v. G o nz a les , 43 5 F. 3d 800, 81 2 (7t h C i r . 20 06 ) (int er n al q u ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed ); see a lso M o hid een v. G o nz a les , 4 16 F.3d 567, 57 0 (7th C ir. 2005). Qu al i fi cati on f orwithhol ding ofr em ova lr equi re s a n ap p l i c a n tt o me e ta h i g h e rs t a n d a r d

. T h e a p p l i c a nt m ust s how thatther e i s a “cl earpro bability” hi s “ l i fe o r fre ed om w ou ld be threa tened .

. . bec ause of[ hi s] r ace, re l i gi on, nati onal i ty, m em ber shi p i n a par ti cul argr oup, o r pol i ti calo pini on. ” 8 U
. S. C. § 1 231(b) ( 3)(A ); Guar di a v.N o. 12

- 2456 17

Thi s ar gum en ti s di s t inct f ro m on e i n whi c h a n a ppl i c ant 7 asserts tha t he w as p ersecu ted on acco u n t o f his op p osition to gov ernm ent corruption or an im pu ted anti

- corrupti on po li ti cal o p in io n . See, e . g. , Haxh i u v. M u kasey, 519 F. 3d 685 , 6 9 0 ( 7th Cir

. 2008) ( expla ini ng that individu als w ho “engage in poli ti cal agit ati on againsts tat e c orruption, s uch as w his tl eblow ers , can be pe r s e c ut e d o n a c c ou nto fa po l i t i c a l o pi ni on ” ( i nt e r nal q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m i t t e d )). In a d d i t i o n to c o n si d e r i n g M u st a fa ’s cl a im thathe had been persec uted on account ofan i m pu ted anti -PM L-N opinion, the Board , l ike the i m m igrat ion j ud ge, addre s s ed whe the r M us t af a had bee n pe rs ec ut ed o n a c c ountof (co n tin u ed ...) M uk a sey, 52 6 F
. 3d 968, 97 2 (7 th C i r. 20 08)
. A s with an appli cati on f oras yl um , a showing ofpast perse c uti on create s a rebu ttab le p resu m p tion th at th e ap p li can t’s li fe or freedo m w ou ld be th reate n e d i n th e futu re f o rthe pur po se o fwi thho l di ngo f rem ova l

. 8 C. F
. R. § 1208
. 16(b)(1).

A . PastPer secut i on by R ehm an and H i s Associ at es M ustaf a’ s cl ai m s forr el i efar e pr em i sed o n hi s a sse rt i on that he has been and w i l lbe perse cuted on a ccount of hi s pol i ti calo pini on in Paki sta n. But M u st afa does not ar gue that hi s a ssa i l ants tar get ed h i m o n acco unt of hi s me mbe r s hi p i n the P M L- N. R a the r, h e c o nt e nd s th a t t h e y v iew ed him as being an opp one nt of or a tr ai to rt o the i rpa r tyf o rha vingc o o per at ed in the M us ha r r afg o ve r nm en t’ s po l i ti ca l l y mot i va ted pr o se cuti on o fReh m an. To s ucceed on a cl ai m thato ne suffer ed 718 N o. 12

- 2456

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 7 anactu al or im p u ted an t i -c o r r u p t i o n p o l i t i c a l o p i n i o n . M u st a fa ’s f oc us onappe al, ho wever, i s o n the an t i

- PM L- N pol i t i c al opi ni on h e c o n t e n d s h i s a t t a c k e r s i mp u t e d t o h i m. perse cuti on due to an i m pu ted pol i ti calo pini on, an appli cant m ust s how ( 1) thathi s per secuto rs at tr ibuted a pol i ti calop in i on t o hi m and ( 2) thatthe att ributed op in ion m ot iva te d th e p er se c u tio n . Sa nk o h v . M uk a sey, 53 9 F
. 3d 45 6, 4 71 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. In i ts o pi ni o n, the B oa rd co n c lu d ed t h a t t h er e w as ins u fficie n t e vid en c e in the r eco rd to support M ustaf a’ s co ntenti on that Rehm an and hi s f ol l owers perce i ved M ustaf a to have d efected th ei rpo l i ti ca lpa r ty
. Ins te ad, the Bo ar d a ffi r m ed th e i m m i g r at i o n j udg e’ s co nc l us i o n tha t th e co nt ex t o fthe att acks sugg est ed that M ustaf a was se en as h av in g b etr aye d Rehm an per sonal l y. This cour t has r ep ea ted l y hel d that “ [ a] per sonal d ispute , no matt erho w nas ty, c anno t su ppo r t ana l i en’s c laim o fas yl um . ” Ma r q u ez v . INS , 1 0 5 F
. 3 d 3 74 , 38 0 (7t h C ir. 19 97 ); s e eal s o Wang v. Gonzales , 4 45 F. 3d 993, 99 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6)
. And the re i s su r ely e vi den ce i n the record to sup p ort the view that M us tafa’s attack ers w ere m oti vate d i n partbya person al d ispute. But the cri ti cal questi on her e i s whether the r eco rd co m pels this co urt to c on c lu d e t h at R eh m an an d h is follo w er s w er e a lso m ot iva te d by a p er c ep tio n th at M u st afa a c t e d w i th an an tiPM L-N senti m ent i n coo perat i ng w i th th e M u shar ra f gov er nm ent. Duri ng M u sta f a’ s hea ring, hi s co unsel ackno w l edged that the perse cuti on at i ts cor e invo l vedN o. 12

- 2456 19

a dispute between tw o parti es, but cl ar i fi ed that i n P ak is t a n , i nv estigations like th e one aga inst R eh m an are part o fthe c o unt ry’s po l i ti cs . M us ta f a ar g ue s th attur ni ng aga i nst Rehm an f orthe purpose o fa n in vesti gat i on was equi val ent to turni ng aga i nst the party i tse l f and that M ustaf a’ s a ssailan ts had i nd i cate d thei r disa pp ro valby cal l i ng hi m a “tr ai tor ” duri ng the i r att ack. I n h erde ci si o n, the i m m i g r at i o n j ud g e ci te d the doctr i ne o fm i xed m oti ves w i th approv albut did not en g ag e i n a tho r o ug h di sc us si o n o re va l ua ti o n o fthe evid en ce of du al m otives M us tafa p rese n t e d . Th e B oard si m i l ar l y o ver l oo ked si gni fi cant c i rcum sta nti alev i dence w h en it r eje c t ed th e p ro p os itio n th at R eh m an an d h is assoc iates view ed M us tafa as ha ving an anti-PM L -N opi ni on. S peci fi cal l y, the Board co ncl ud ed that the a ttack ers’ use of the w ord “traitor” i m p li ed that M us tafa had b e t r a y e d Re hma n pe r s o na l l y o nly b e c a us e the at
tac k er s ha d a l so war ne d M us ta f a no t to “ cr o ss ” Re hm an . Bu t thi s co ncl usi on does notaddress t h e l ar gerf actual c o nt e xti n whi c h the h a r a s s men tand at t a c k s o c c ur r e d. F o l low ing th e uphe av ali n P ak i st ani n 1 99 9, the M usharr afr egi m e a rbi tr ar i l y a rr est ed an d detai ned pol i ti calfi gure s fro m the Shar i fgo ver nm ent in an att em pt to suppress and contro l the pol i ti calo pp osi ti on an d di sc r edi t hi g h- r an k i ng m embe r s o f th e PM L- N
. The M usharr afgo ver nm ent g ave M u st af a the “cho i ce” of parti ci pati ng i n i ts i nvestigat i on o fa f or m erS enato r an d c l o se a ss o ci at e o fa f o r m erpr i m e m in i st ero rha ving hi s f am i l y a rr es ted. M ustaf a info rm ed the M usharr af gov ernm ent o fhi s know l edge o fRehm an’ s fi nanci al affa irs , in c lu d in g s ev er al la rg e t ra n sfe rs of fu n d s, an d in20 N o. 12

- 2456

The Boar d also de fer re d t o the i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s c onc l u- 8 si on that th e att ackers had “let[ M ustaf a] know thathe was pay ing the p ri ce for providing inf orm ati on abo ut M r. Rehm an to the authori ti es

— not because ofany dif fer ence ofpolit ic al o p i n i o n b e t w e e n th e tw o m e n .” T h e im m i g r a t i o n ju d g e ’s re ading o f the at t ac ke rs ’ m es s age , ho wever, was bas ed o n the sam e l i m i t ed vi ew ofthe c ont ex ti n whi c h the be a t i ngo c c ur r e d. effect, as si ste d i n the M usharr afgo ver nm ent’ s pol i tica lly m o ti va te d t ak edo w n ofa PML

- N o ffi ci al

. F o l l o wi ng hi s r el eas e fro m pri so n and duri ng an encounterwith M ustaf a, Rehm an di sag re ed w i th M ustaf a’ s e xplanati on f o rh a v i n ga s s i s t e d t he Mu s h a r r a fg o v e r n me n ta n d e mp h a s i z e d h i s po l i ti ca lp o we ri n d e l i v e r i n ga th r e a t
. He i ndi ca te d tha t he ha d b ee n r unning th e co unt r y, tha t he w as as p ow er fu l as th e p rim e m in ist er , an d th at h e c ou ld quick l y dest ro y M ustaf a. A fterM ustaf a r etur ned to Pa kistan, f ou r m en w ho ac cu sed him o f b e in g a “traitor” be athi m f o rmor e th an t wenty min ut es unt i lhe l o stc o ns ci o us ne ss , a nd the po l i ce t o o kno a ct i o n. 8 The i m m i gr ati on j ud ge and the Boar d al so ov erl oo ked the por ti on o fDr. Parke r’s affi davi t a dd re ssing the at tack M ustaf a experi enced i n Paki sta n i n 2003
. Dr. Par ker ex p lain ed th at m os t m e m b e r s o f th e P M L -N are h igh ly l oya lto S hari fand h is ass oci ate s a nd thati t i s co m m on forpol i ti calpart i es i n Paki sta n to em plo y “ thugs” to car ryo ut reta l i ato ryact s a gainst those theyvi ew as en em ies. Th e affidav it al so ind icated th at it i s D r. Parker’s bel i efthatM ustaf a had be en at tac ke d by“thugs” w or kin g for th e P M L -N an d th at t h e at ta c k fit t h e m oldN o. 12

- 2456 21 of p olit ica l ret alia tio n . T h e im m igr at ion j u d ge ’s o n ly referenc e to the affi d avit rel ated to Dr. Parker’s opi ni on about the l i kel i hood thatM ustaf a would f ace perse cuti on fro m t h e M usharr afgo ver nm ent. Because Dr
. Pa r k ersigned th e affi dav i t i n 2 00 7 whi l e th e M usharr afr egi m e was st i l li n pow er, the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge ex p lai ne d that the a ff id a vit did l ittl e to sup p ort the v i ew t hat M ustaf a co uld f ace perse cuti on fro m th e cur r en t Zar dar i g o ve r nm en t. But th e f ac t th at D r. Pa r k era utho r ed the re po r t i n 2 00 7 do es no t al te rthe re l evance o fhertesti m ony re l ating to the att ack that occur re d i n 200 3. Contrary t o the Attorney Gener al ’ s s ugges ti on, thi s ca se i s d i s t i n g u i s h ab l e fr o m To no y a n v . M uk a sey, 288 F. A p p ’x 278 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( nonprece denti aldeci si on) , i n w hi ch w e hel d that a peti ti one r w h o f aced per secuti on f or havi ng r epor ted the i denti ty ofan in d ivi du ali nvol ved ina p olit ica lly m o t i v a te d at ta c k d id n otsh ow th at h is perse cutor s “ w er e m oti vate d, at l eas t in part, byan actual or im pu ted pol i ti calo pini on. ” Id. at28 2 ( i nter nal quo ta ti o n mar k s o m i tt ed)

. In Tonoyan , an Arm eni an ci ti zen who had w i tness ed a c ri m e invol vi ng a l oca l pol i ti calcandi date a pp l i ed foras yl um , withhol ding of r emov al, a nd pr o te ct i o n und er the CAT. Id. a t 27 9. The al l eg ed per se cut i o n in Tonoyan oc c u rre d in c los e p ro x im ity to a local election for an office si m il ar t o t ha t of a m ay or in t h e U n ite d Sta te s. Id. S hor tly b efor e the el ecti o n, o ne o fthe c ha l l en g i ngc an di dat es dr o pped o ut of th e ra c e a n d en d or se d th e o t h er ch alle n ge r. Id. The daya fte rthe e ndo r se m en t, To no y anwi tn es se d f o urmen, one of w ho m he r ec o g ni ze d t o b e th e ne phe w ofthe22 N o. 12

- 2456 i ncum bent i n the ra ce, atta ck the c andidate wh o had dropped out and endors ed the re m ai ni ng chal l enger. Id. A t fi rs t, Tonoyan t old the pol i ce that he did notkno w an y o f the men i nv o l v e d i n the a t t a c k b e c a us e he was afr aid of th e i n c u m b en t’s n ep h ew . Id. a t 28 0. Butthe pol i ce b eathi m unti lhe g ave them th e n ep hew ’ s nam e. Id. The next w eek, f our m en cam e to Tonoy an ’s h ouse a n d a tt ac ke d h im
. Id. The men t o l d To no y anthe y were ca r r y i ngo utthe a tt ac kf o rthe i nc um bent’ s ne phe w and th re at en ed to kill h im if h e t es tifie d ag ain st th eir frien d

. Id. A lthough the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge f ound Tonoyan cr ed ibl e, she denie d his r eq u es t f oras yl um , co ncl ud i ng tha t the m en at tack ed hi m noton account o fan i m pu ted po l i ti ca lopi ni o n, b utb ec au se the y want ed to pr ev en t h im from te st ifyin g a ga in st th eir frien d

. Id. a t2 8 0

- 8 1. The Board a ffi rm ed

. Id. at28 1. On app ealto thi s co urt, To no y ana r g ue d tha t th e i m m i g r at i o n j udg e an d the B oa rd err ed by not engag i ng i n a m i xed-m oti ves anal ysis
. Id. at28 1. W e d en ied t h e p et itio n for re vie w in ano r der, c o nc l udi ngtha t ev eni fTo no y anhad adm i nist ra tiv ely ex h au st ed h is m ix ed -m ot ive s c laim , he co u ld n otp oin t t o a n y e vid en c e in th e r ec or d th at h is att acke rs had ac te d i n parto n acco unt ofan i m pu ted po l i ti ca lo pi ni o n tha t th e i m m i g r at i o n j udg e an d the B oa rd h ad n otco n sid er ed

. Id. at28 2. W e a l so hel d that su bsta nt ialeviden ce su p p o r ted the im m igrati on j ud ge’s and the Boar d’s concl usi on that Tono yan was no t per secut ed o n ac counto fa n i m put ed po l i ti ca lo pi ni o n. Al th o u g h p o l i t i c a la c t o r s w e r e i n v o l v e d i n th e c r i me T onoy an w itness ed , w e exp lai ne d that h is atta ckers “s ai d tha t the y wer e at ta ck i nghi m f o r[ th e ne phe w] an dN o. 12

- 2456 23 th re at en ed to kill him i fh e te st ified ag ain st [th eir fri end]; theydi d not m enti on [ the incum bent’ s nam e] or th e u p c om in g e lec tio n .” Id. H er e, unl i k e i n Tonoyan , M u st a fa’ s a tt ac ke rs ex p licit ly st at ed th at th ey w er e c ar ry in g ou t t h eir at t ac k on be h alf ofa hi gh-ra nki ng m em bero fthe PM L-N
. The i m m i gr atio n j u d ge an d th e B oa rd d id n otad d re ss ev id en c e in th e re c or d of th e h igh ly p ola riz ed p olit ica l co n te x t in whi chthe a tt ac k s o cc ur r ed. The i m m i g r at i o n j udg e a nd th e Bo ar d a l so o m i tt ed an yr efer en ce t o Re hm an ’ s co nver sat i on with M ustaf a in w hi ch Rehm an di sag reed w i th M ustaf a’ s e xplanat i on f orhaving co oper ate d w i th the M usharr afgo ver nm ent a nd em phas i zed hi s pol i ti cal p ow er i n del i ver i ng a thre at. M or eov er, the i m m i gr ati on j udg e an d the Bo ar d di smi ss ed w itho ute xpl an at i o n the port i on o fDr. Par ker ’ s t est i m ony i n w h ich s he analyze d t h e p o litic al n at u re of th e 2 00 3 a tt ac k. C olle c tiv ely , th is ev i den ce , whi chwas pr es en t i n the reco r d b utabs en t fro m the anal ysi s be l ow, sheds a differ ent l i ght o n M us ta f a’ s at ta ck er s’ us e o fthe wor d “ tr aitor” dur i ngthe be at in g . M us ta f a as si st ed i n the t ak edo wn o fa hi g hr an k ing m em be ro fthe PML

- N i m m edi at ely a fte rthe 19 99 shift in pow eri n Paki sta n, and i n the conte xt o f the f acts ar ti cul ate d above , i t w ou l d be unre aso nabl e t o con clud e tha t his actions w ere view ed by hi s attac kers as so lely ap olit ica l. W e hav e r epeate dlyhel d that a n appli cant i s e nti tl ed to a rea so n ed an aly sis of his c as e, “n ot on e w h ich w h olly ign or es or d isr eg ar d s re lev an t, p ro b at ive ev id e n c e.” Gje r azi, 435 F.3d at81 3; s e eal s o M ohid een , 4 16 F. 3d at 571.24 N o. 12

- 2456 I n concl ud i ng tha t M usta f a’ s a tta cker s were m oti vate d sim plybya perso naldi spute, the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge an d the Bo ar d e r r ed i n di sr egard in ge vi den ce i n the re c or d th at th e a tt ac ke rs ac te d w ith m ix ed m ot ive s. T h is c as e p re se n ts a u n iqu e s etof f a c t s t h at u ltim at ely com p el t h e c onc lusion th at M us tafa’s attack ers w ere m oti vate d i n part b y an anti

- PM L-N pol i ti calo pini on they att ributed to hi m . M ustaf a i s there f or e en ti tl ed to a p r e s u mp t i o n i n f a v o ro fg r a n t i n ga s y l u m. O n r e man d, the g o v e r nme ntwi l lh a v e the o pp o r tun i t y t o r e b utthat presum pti on bypro vin g that “ [ t] here has been a fund am en ta lc ha ng e i n c i r cumst an ce s su chtha t [ he ] no l o ng erha s a wel l

- f o unde d fea ro fpe r se cut i o n” o rtha t he “cou ld avoid pers ecu tion by r e locating to an oth er pa rt o f ” P a k i s t a n i f“ i two u l d b e r e a s o n ab l e t o e x p e c t[ h i m] to d o so. ” 8 C
. F.R. § 1208
. 13(b)(1)( i)
. The i m m i g r at i o n j udg e’ s den i alo fM us ta f a’ s wi th

hol ding ofr em ova lcl ai m was prem i sed ent ire l y o n her i ni ti alde ter m i nati on that M ustaf a was notper secute d on a ccount ofpol i ti calo pini on. H avi ng dete rm i ned th at th e r e c o r d com p els a contrary con clusion, M us tafa i s a l so enti tl ed to a presum pti on that h is l i fe o r free d om w ou ld be th reaten ed i f he w ere to return t o P a k i s t a n. 8 C. F
. R. § 1208. 1 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( i )
. Onr e man d, the g ove rnm ent m ay re but thi s presum pti on by sh o wi nga funda m en ta lc ha ng e i n c i r cumst an ce s o rthe re as on ab len es s o f a sa fe re loc at ion els ew h er e in P ak istan
. 8 C.F. R
. § 1208.16(b)( 1)(i i)
.N o. 12

- 2456 25 B . F e a ro fPe r s e c ut i o n b yt he Z a r da r i Go v e rnme nt M us ta f a ar g ue s th at th e i m m i g r at i o n j udg e an d the Bo ar d a l so e r r ed i n re fus i ngto co ns i derthe per se cut i o n h e coul d fa ce fro m the curr ent g ove rnm en t i n Paki sta n on acco unt ofhi s m em b er shi p i n the PM L-N and hi s pri or cl ose ass oci ati on w i th Rehm an and S hari f

. H e fu rther c o nt e nd s tha tme mbe r s o fthe Z a r da r ig ove rn men tc o ul d, und erthr eato far re st, fo rce hi m to pro vi de i nfo rm ati on about Re h m an i fRehm an were ar re ste d and p ro secuted on a ctual or f abr i cate d charg es. M ustaf a t est i fi ed that Pres i dent Zardar ihas an ev en gr eat err eas on t o s e e kr e t r ib ut i o n a g a i ns tR e hma n tha n the Mus ha r ra f gov er nm ent b ecause Pre si dent Zardar ibl am es Rehm an f o ra rbi tr ar i l y i m pr i so ni nghi m unde rha r shc o ndi ti o ns and for an al l ege d a ssa ssinati on att em pt that oc c u rr ed whi l e h e wa s i n the c us t o dyo fthe S ha r i fg o v e rnm ent. I n di smi ss i ngM us ta f a’ s ar g um en ts r el at i ng to the Z ard ari govern m en t, th e B oard c o n c lud ed that M us tafa did notsuffi ci entl y a rt i cul ate a fearo fper secuti on b efo re th e im m igr at ion j u d g e an d d id n otad eq u at ely e x p l a i n w h y th e g o v e r n me n tw o u l d s e e kt o h a r m h i m. W i thr eg ar d t o M us ta f a’ s g en er ala r g um en t tha t th e Z ar dari gov er nm ent w i l l tar get hi m on acco unt ofh is m em bersh ip in th e PM L -N , w e agree w ith th e B oard that M ustaf a di d not s uffi ci entl y a rt i cul ate thi s fearto th e i m m i g r at i o n j udge. Bute ve n i fhe ha d, hi s ar g um en t woul d f al ls ho rt. M us ta f a do es no t ci te t o a ny do cum en t o rt es ti m o ny i n the r ec o r d t o s uppo r t hi s co nt en ti on that the Zar darigov er n m ent i s t aking ac ti on aga i nst p ol i ti call eader s a nd f acti ons that ar e no l onge r26 N o. 12

- 2456 in pow er. Th e B oard ap p r o p riately rej ecte d M us tafa’s re lian c e on th e po rt ion of D r. P ar ke r’s te st im on y in w h ich sh e d isc u s s e d th e like lih oo d th at M u st afa w ou ld be per secute d by th e curre nt Pak i sta ni go ver nm ent. Dr
. Pa r k er si g ne d he r affi dav i t i n 20 07 be f o r e Presi den t Za r da r iwa s e l e c t e d a nd b e f o r e the P M L- N g ai ne d a co ns i der ab l e numbero fs ea ts i n the par l i ament
. The c u rre n t g ov er n m en t in P ak ist an is t h er efo re sign ifica n tly di ffe r e ntfr o m the g o v e r nme ntDr
. P a r k e rr e fe r e nc e d, an d th e r e i s n o i n d i c a t i o n th a tth e Z a r d a r ig o v e r n men t has fol l owed the M usharr afgo ver nm ent’ s p racti ce o f arbi tr ar i l y a rr est i ng m em ber s o fthe P M L -N
. A nd ev en ifthe Z ard ari g o vern m en t w ere to target Sha rif’s follo w er s, it is n o t cle ar w h y t h e g ov er n m en t w ou ld tar getM ustaf a, so m eone wh o p arti ci pated i n an i nvesti gat i on a gainst Rehm an under the M usha r r a fg o v e rnm ent. Rel ate dly, M ustaf a a rgues that i f h e w er e t o re turn t o Pa k i st an, the Za r dar ig o ve r nm en t woul d sin g l e hi m o ut for h is p rior clo se a s s o c i a tio n w ith R eh m an an d kn ow le d g e o fR e h ma n ’ s fi n a n c i a la ff a i r s a nd f o r c e h i m, und erthr eato far re st, to co operat e in an i nvest i gat i on aga i nst Rehm an. H e co ntend s that hi s pri orexper i ence w ith the M usharr afgo ver nm ent dem onst ra tes the l i keliho o d tha t he woul d b e t ar g et ed bythe Za r dar ig o ve r nm ent as a sour ce of i nfo rm ati on. Bu t M ustaf a al so expla i ns that Pre si dent Za rd ar i hol ds Rehm an re sponsib le fo r havi ng i m pri sone d him under har sh c o nd i t i o ns a nd f o ra n a l l e g e d a s s a s s i na t i o n a t t e mpt ag ains t Zar dar itha t occur r ed whi l e he was i n the custo dy ofthe Shari fgo ver nm ent. H e doe s no t a rt i cul ate w h y t h e Z ar d ar i gov er n m en t w ou ld be int er es te d inN o. 12

- 2456 27 M u st afa ’s k n ow led ge of R e h m an ’s fin an c ial a ffair s in the c onte xt o fa m urder i nvest i gat i on a nd does notal l ege that he has any s pecial knowle dge o fRehm an’ s t re atm ent of Zardari

. The concl usi on that M ustaf a d id not ar ti cul ate a w el l

- f ounded fearof perse cuti on by Pres i dent Zardar iand hi s g ove rnm ent i s thus supp or ted b y the e v i de nc e i n the r e c o r d. On r em an d , the Bo ar d s ho ul d the r efo r e f o cus i ts a tt en ti o n o n Must af a’ s fea ro fpe r se cut i on by Reh m ana nd hi s a sso ci ate s.

I I I . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we G RANT M u s t a f a’s p et it i o n f o rr e v i e w and R EMA ND to the Board f orfurther pr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

2- 11- 13