In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 12-2456

GHULAM MUSTAFA, et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

of the United States,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals.

Nos. A98-139-201; A98-139-256; A98-139-257;

A98-139-258 & A98-139-259

ARGUED JANUARY 18, 2013—DECIDED FEBRUARY 11, 2013

Before POSNER, FLAUM, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Ghulam Mustafa and his family

seek review of a decision of the Board of Immigration

Appeals in which the Board affirmed the immigration

judge’s denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Mustafa, a citizen of Pakistan and

member of the Nawaz faction of the Pakistani Muslim

League political party (“PML-N”), filed an application
2 No. 12-2456

for asylum and withholding of removal on the basis that

he fears if he were to return to Pakistan, he would be

targeted for having cooperated with the opposition government under General Pervez Musharraf by providing

information about the financial affairs of his former

employer, who is also a former Pakistani Senator.

In affirming the immigration judge’s denial of the application, the Board explained that Mustafa could not

establish a fear of future persecution on account of a

protected statutory ground. Instead, the Board concluded

that the threats and attacks Mustafa had experienced

before coming to the United States were motivated

solely by a personal dispute between Mustafa and his

former boss and that he had not shown that the current

government would persecute him on account of his

membership in the PML-N. We grant the Mustafa

family’s petition for review and remand the case

for further proceedings because the conclusion that

Mustafa’s attackers were motivated solely by a desire

for personal revenge is unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Mustafa, a forty-eight-year-old citizen of Pakistan, and

his family entered the United States legally as non-immigrant visitors in November 2003. The Mustafas were

authorized to stay in the United States until May 27,

2004. Two days before the expiration of his visa,

Mustafa filed an application for asylum and withholding
No. 12-2456 3

Mustafa’s wife is a forty-three-year-old native and citizen of

1

Pakistan. The couple has three children who are citizens of

Pakistan and who are currently eighteen, sixteen, and fourteen years old. Mustafa and his wife also have an eight-year-old

daughter who was born in Chicago in 2004, who is a citizen

of the United States, and who is not part of their removal

proceedings.

of removal, asserting that he feared returning to Pakistan

because he believed he would be targeted for having

provided the Musharraf government with information

about the financial affairs of a former Pakistani Senator. Mustafa’s wife and three of the couple’s minor children

were named as derivatives on the application.1

1. Mustafa’s Life in Pakistan and the United Arab

Emirates

In the affidavit he attached to his asylum application

and during his hearing, Mustafa stated that he has been

an active member of the PML-N since 1988 when he was

a student at the University of Punjab in Lahore, Punjab,

Pakistan. After graduating, Mustafa moved to Abu

Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (“UAE”). In 1996, Saifur

Rehman, a high-ranking member of the PML-N and soonto-be Pakistani senator, hired Mustafa to work for him

as the Public Relations Officer at Redco Al Suwaidi

Ready Mix (“Redco”), Rehman’s construction business

in the UAE. In addition to managing daily assignments

and employee relations at Redco, Mustafa assisted

Rehman with several transfers of funds. On one occasion,
4 No. 12-2456

Rehman directed Mustafa to transfer eighteen million

dollars in multiple transactions from Citibank in New

York to Mashraq Bank in New York and ultimately to

Abu Dhabi. Because of Rehman’s political power and

his close association with Nawaz Sharif, the leader of the

PML-N, Mustafa did not ask any questions about

the transfer.

In 1997, the PML-N won the parliamentary elections

in Pakistan and Sharif took command as Prime Minister.

During the shift in power, Rehman was elected to the

Pakistani Senate, and he served as the chairman of the

National Accountability Bureau (“NAB”), an agency

created to investigate and prosecute public corruption.

After the elections, Rehman told Mustafa that the

Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Agency would be

monitoring all of Mustafa’s telephone conversations

at Redco as a part of an investigation of the NAB. When

he learned of the surveillance, Mustafa began looking

for other work, and he eventually resigned from his

position at Redco in 1998.

In October 1999, Sharif attempted to remove General

Pervez Musharraf from his position as the Chief of Army

Staff. Musharraf resisted and with the help of other

Army Generals took power of the country and ousted

Sharif’s administration. After the coup, the Musharraf

government acted quickly in arresting former PML-N

leaders. Rehman and Sharif were among those detained,

and Sharif went into exile shortly thereafter.

Mustafa reports that in early 2000, Pakistani intelligence agents in the UAE approached him and in-
No. 12-2456 5

The Exit Control List is a border-control system maintained 2

by the Pakistani government. Persons whose names appear

on the list are not allowed to leave the country.

formed him that Rehman had engaged in corrupt activities. The agents told Mustafa that because he was

a member of the PML-N, he was required to cooperate

with the Musharraf government and that if he refused

to cooperate, there would be “trouble” and his family

in Pakistan could be arrested. Fearful that his family

would be targeted, Mustafa agreed to participate in

the investigation and provided the Pakistani authorities

with information about certain accounts and large

financial transactions he had overseen at Redco. In

August 2000, Mustafa returned to Pakistan in accordance with the government’s request and provided

further assistance in the investigation. In addition to

asking about Rehman’s affairs at Redco, the government questioned Mustafa about a relationship between

Rehman’s wife and Sharif. When Mustafa refused to

answer questions about Rehman’s personal life, the

government put Mustafa’s name on Pakistan’s Exit

Control List. Concerned once again that his family 2

would be harmed if he refused to cooperate, Mustafa

ultimately agreed to answer the government’s questions. Once the government officials were satisfied with

his assistance, they removed Mustafa’s name from the

list and allowed him to return to the UAE.

Upon the completion of the investigation, the Musharraf government prosecuted Rehman on corruption
6 No. 12-2456

charges and sentenced him to fourteen years in prison.

After reaching an apparent agreement with the government, however, Rehman was released from jail in

2002. When Rehman returned to the UAE following his

release, a Redco employee called Mustafa and told

him “Rehman would never forgive [him] and he was

going to get [him] for having talked to the NAB about

his affairs.” After receiving this call, Mustafa went to

Rehman’s factory to explain why he had assisted in

the investigation. Rehman disagreed with the explanation and in response threatened Mustafa, telling him,

“you know my powers. I was running the country. I

was equal to [the] prime minister in Pakistan and . . .

I could . . . wipe you up in a minute.”

In February 2003, Mustafa recalls that the car he was

driving in the UAE was trapped between two trucks

and that the trucks were of the type used by Redco. He

believes that Rehman or his associates tried to kill him

by making it look like an accident, which he reported to

be a common occurrence in countries like Pakistan and

the UAE. Although Mustafa reported the accident to

the police, he does not believe that the police took any

action. Instead, shortly after the accident occurred, three

plainclothes policemen came to his house, told him that

it was not safe for him to remain in the UAE, and

informed him that he was “playing with fire.” After

this confrontation, Mustafa reports he was followed,

harassed, and questioned for several months until he

eventually decided to escape the torment and move

back to Pakistan with the rest of his family.
No. 12-2456 7

But the harassment continued. When Mustafa arrived

in Pakistan in August 2003, his brother received a call

from Rehman’s brother, Atikir, inquiring into Mustafa’s

whereabouts. Referring to Mustafa, Atikir said, “[h]e

betrayed my brother . . . . He pass[ed] this information

on to [the government] and due to this action, we were

in trouble so we want to get revenge.” Although

Mustafa’s brother told Atikir that Mustafa was still

living somewhere in the UAE, Rehman’s associates

located Mustafa in Pakistan. On October 5, 2003, Mustafa

and a friend were driving in Mustafa’s car when

another car pulled in front of them and blocked them

from going any farther. A group of men exited the car

with guns and approached Mustafa’s vehicle. The men

dragged Mustafa and his friend out of the car and beat

and kicked them for more than twenty minutes. During

the attack, the men accused Mustafa of being a “traitor”

and told him not to cross Rehman ever again. Mustafa

lost consciousness after being hit in the head and was

taken to a hospital for treatment. He received seven

stitches and remained in the hospital for more than a

week. Mustafa reported the incident to the police,

but the police took no action. Mustafa believes that the

Pakistani government would never protect him from

Rehman’s retribution.

Following the beating, Mustafa returned briefly to the

UAE to sell his car, collect his salary, and settle his accounts. He then traveled to the United States with his

family because he no longer felt safe living in either

Pakistan or the UAE. He received nearly six months

of medical treatment after arriving in the United States
8 No. 12-2456

Mustafa also testified that the Zardari government has 3

arranged for Rehman’s arrest through the International

Criminal Police Organization (“INTERPOL”).

to assist with the memory loss and speech disorder that

he experienced after the beating. He remains an active

member of the Chicago chapter of the PML-N and works

to support his family.

2. Current Government in Pakistan

In 2008, the Pakistan People’s Party (“PPP”) and the

PML-N defeated General Musharraf’s government in

parliamentary elections. The PPP and the PML-N formed

a coalition government and initiated impeachment proceedings against General Musharraf, who eventually

resigned. The PML-N then left the coalition because of a

disagreement over whether to reinstate judges removed

by General Musharraf. Asif Ali Zardari, a member of

the PPP, was elected as the new president of Pakistan

in September 2008, shortly after the assassination of his

wife, Benazir Bhutto. Mustafa testified at his hearing

that the PLM-N plays an important role in current Pakistani politics and holds the second greatest number

of parliamentary seats. He also testified that Rehman

is currently living in Qatar and that there is an outstanding warrant for Rehman’s arrest in Pakistan

relating to his treatment of Zardari while the PML-N

was in power in 1999. Mustafa fears if he and his 3

family were to return to Pakistan, Rehman or his

associates would persecute them in further retribution

for his assistance to the Musharraf government.
No. 12-2456 9

3. Supporting Documentary Evidence

In support of his asylum application, Mustafa submitted an affidavit from Dr. Karen Parker, an attorney

specializing in international law who has studied

human rights in Pakistan. In the affidavit, which she

wrote in October 2007, Dr. Parker summarized Pakistan’s

political structure, discussed the prevalence of human

rights violations, and shared her position on Mustafa’s

likelihood of future persecution in Pakistan. She explained that most members of the PML-N are “highly

loyal to Sharif and his associates,” and that it is typical

for political parties to have “thugs” in place to “carry

out retaliation against perceived enemies.” Dr. Parker

expressed her view that Mustafa had been attacked

by “thugs” from the PML-N and noted that the type of

“attack he suffered is typical of political retaliation.”

Dr. Parker also opined that Mustafa could face persecution from the Musharraf government, which was still

in power at the time she signed her affidavit, on

account of his membership in the PML-N.

Also included in the record before the immigration

judge were the State Department’s 2006 and 2009 country

conditions reports for Pakistan and several news

articles addressing the country’s political instability. Both

country reports indicate that corruption among the

police is common in Pakistan. According to the reports,

Pakistani police have been known to charge fees to investigate genuine complaints and to accept bribes on

behalf of those wishing to avoid charges. The reports

also confirm “politically motivated killings” perpetrated

by “political factions.”
10 No. 12-2456

B. Procedural Background

The United States Citizenship and Immigration

Services denied Mustafa’s application for asylum and

withholding of removal and referred him and his family

to the Immigration Court for removal proceedings. On

October 14, 2004, the Department of Homeland Security

filed a Notice to Appear for each family member

charging their removability for overstaying their period

of admission. On October 11, 2005, the Mustafas

appeared before an immigration judge, and through

counsel, conceded removability. For relief from removal,

however, Mustafa renewed his application for asylum

and requested withholding of removal and protection

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), claiming

that he has a well-founded fear that if he were to return

to Pakistan, he would be persecuted on account of his

membership in a particular social group and his

political opinion.

1. Immigration Judge

Mustafa appeared in front of an immigration judge for

a hearing on his renewed application for asylum and

withholding of removal on April 1, 2010. At the hearing,

Mustafa testified about the harassment he experienced

in the UAE and in Pakistan and elaborated on the

beatings that occurred shortly before he left for the

United States. Mustafa’s friend, Mohammed Asif, who

was with him in his car on the day of the attack in

Pakistan corroborated his testimony about the beatings,

and Mustafa’s then sixteen-year-old son Mohab testified
No. 12-2456 11

The immigration judge noted two discrepancies between 4

Mustafa’s testimony and Asif’s testimony. Both men claimed to

have been driving Mustafa’s car on the day of the attack in

Pakistan, and Mustafa recalled that the incident occurred

in October while Asif thought it happened in August. Nevertheless, she explained that the inconsistencies were slight

(continued...)

that he visited his father in the hospital after the attack.

When pressed by the immigration judge to explain

the social group of which he was a member, Mustafa

clarified through counsel that his claim for asylum was

based solely on his fear of persecution on account of his

actual or imputed political opinion.

At the conclusion of the testimony, the government

argued that the conflict between Mustafa and Rehman

was a personal dispute not based on political affiliation.

In response, Mustafa’s counsel stated, “Yes, your

Honor. It’s true that at the core it involves a vendetta

between two people,” but emphasized that the attacks

could not be separated from the political context in

which they occurred. He explained that governments

in Pakistan use corruption and political investigations

“to effect harm on political rivals” and argued that

Mustafa was persecuted on account of “political opinion

or imputed political opinion” for having assisted

in the Musharraf government’s politically motivated

investigation of Rehman.

Although the immigration judge found Mustafa’s

testimony to be generally credible, she concluded that he 4
12 No. 12-2456

(...continued) 4

and did “not significantly undermine the probative weight

of the totality of [Mustafa’s] testimony, especially in light of

the fact that the incident occurred seven years ago.”

did not show a nexus between any past or future persecution and a protected statutory ground. She noted that

until the Musharraf government’s investigation, Rehman

and Mustafa had no disputes or disagreements tied at

all to political opinion and that “when Mr. Rehman’s

agents beat [Mustafa] they let him know that he was

paying the price for providing information about

Mr. Rehman to the authorities—not because of any difference of political opinion between the two men.” Accordingly, she determined that Mustafa’s attackers

were motivated solely by a desire to inflict personal

retribution.

The immigration judge briefly addressed a portion of

Dr. Parker’s testimony that suggested Mustafa could

face persecution from the current Pakistani government,

but she ultimately gave it little weight because of the

change in political power in Pakistan that occurred

after Dr. Parker signed her affidavit:

Dr. Parker’s testimony states that “General political

violence has dramatically increased, with members

of especially the Muslim League (N) and the PPP

political parties being targeted.” However, that

letter was written in October 2007, when Gen.

Musharraf’s military government was still in power.
No. 12-2456 13

Since then, the PML-N and the PPP have regained

political power.

Admin. R. at 85-86 (internal citations omitted).

Because Mustafa could not satisfy the lower burden

of proof for asylum, the immigration judge concluded

that he did not meet his burden for the purpose of withholding of removal. The immigration judge also held

that Mustafa was not entitled to protection under the

CAT because he did not meet his burden of proving he

would “more likely than not” be tortured upon returning to Pakistan.

2. Board of Immigration Appeals

On September 14, 2010, Mustafa appealed his case to

the Board of Immigration Appeals. Mustafa argued that

the immigration judge concluded incorrectly that the

harm he had suffered was solely on account of a personal

vendetta rather than a political opinion his attackers

had imputed to him. He claimed that the Pakistani government used information he had provided to convict

Rehman on corruption charges, which in turn “led

Rehman and his supporters and other members of the

PML-N to perceive [him] as a ‘traitor’ to their political

party.” Mustafa elaborated that by cooperating in the

investigation, he was seen has having “assist[ed] enemies

of the PML-N in targeting and suppressing a leading

member of the [PML-N] and the Sharif government.”

Mustafa also argued that the immigration judge did not

understand or even consider the danger that he would
14 No. 12-2456

face from current Pakistani President Zardari and his

followers if he were to return to Pakistan.

The Board upheld the immigration judge’s decision

and dismissed Mustafa’s appeal on May 21, 2012. The

Board held that the immigration judge did not err in

concluding that Mustafa’s attackers were motivated

solely by a desire for personal revenge. It determined

there was insufficient evidence in the record to support

Mustafa’s contention that Rehman and his followers

imputed an anti-PML-N political opinion to him or

that any perceived anti-PML-N political opinion motivated the attacks. Specifically, the Board found Mustafa’s

attackers’ use of the word “traitor” to be unconvincing

because “[t]he context of its use suggests . . . that he was

seen as betraying Rehman rather than the party: he

was warned not to cross Rehman and to be loyal to

Rehman.” Finally, the Board agreed with the Department of Homeland Security that Mustafa did not sufficiently articulate his fear of persecution from the

current Pakistani government before the immigration

judge and that he did not adequately explain why the

Zardari government would seek to harm him for his

prior association with Rehman when he cooperated

with the Musharraf government’s criminal investigation

of Rehman. 

II. Discussion

On appeal, Mustafa does not challenge the immigration judge’s ruling with respect to his eligibility for protection under the CAT, so we address only his claims for
No. 12-2456 15

The Attorney General suggests that we should limit our 5

review to the Board’s decision, but the Board did not issue a

stand-alone opinion in this case. See Liu v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 307,

311-12 (7th Cir. 2004). Instead, the Board agreed with the

immigration judge’s findings and conclusions and supplemented the decision with additional reasoning.

asylum and statutory withholding of removal. Our

review of the Board’s denial of asylum and withholding

of removal is deferential; we require only that the

decision be “supported by reasonable, substantial and

probative evidence on the record considered as a

whole.” Boci v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 762, 766 (7th Cir. 2007)

(quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992)).

We will reverse the Board and grant an applicant’s

petition for review, however, when the evidence in the

record is “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder

could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” BuesoAvila v. Holder, 663 F.3d 934, 937 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483-84). When the Board

adopts the decision of the immigration judge and supplements that decision with its own reasoning, as it did

here, we review the immigration judge’s decision as

supplemented by the Board. Jonaitiene v. Holder, 660

F.3d 267, 270 (7th Cir. 2011).5

To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must show that

he is “unable or unwilling to return” to the country of his

nationality “because of persecution or a well-founded

fear of persecution on account of race, religion,

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or

political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). An ap-
16 No. 12-2456

The REAL ID Act of 2005 now requires an applicant to 6

show that one of the five protected grounds was a “central

reason” for his persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). The

record in this case indicates, however, that Mustafa filed his

original application for asylum by May 25, 2004, and thus, preREAL ID standards and case law apply. See Dawoud v.

Gonzales, 424 F.3d 608, 613 (7th Cir. 2005) (“This rule affects

only new asylum applicants (whose applicants are filed after

May 11, 2005) . . . .”).

plicant who successfully proves that he was subject to

past persecution is presumed to have a well-founded

fear of future persecution, which the Attorney General

can rebut by demonstrating a change in conditions in the

applicant’s home country. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1). Under

the mixed-motives doctrine applied by this circuit prior

to the enactment of the REAL ID Act, which applies in

this case, an applicant may qualify for asylum if 6

his persecutors had more than one motive for their

conduct so long as the applicant demonstrates by either

direct or circumstantial evidence that his persecutors

were “motivated, at least in part, by one of the enumerated grounds.” Gjerazi v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 800, 812

(7th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see

also Mohideen v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 567, 570 (7th Cir. 2005).

Qualification for withholding of removal requires an

applicant to meet a higher standard. The applicant

must show that there is a “clear probability” his “life or

freedom would be threatened . . . because of [his] race,

religion, nationality, membership in a particular group, or

political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Guardia v.
No. 12-2456 17

 This argument is distinct from one in which an applicant 7

asserts that he was persecuted on account of his opposition to

government corruption or an imputed anti-corruption political

opinion. See, e.g., Haxhiu v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 685, 690 (7th Cir.

2008) (explaining that individuals who “engage in political

agitation against state corruption, such as whistleblowers, can

be persecuted on account of a political opinion” (internal

quotation marks omitted)). In addition to considering Mustafa’s

claim that he had been persecuted on account of an imputed

anti-PML-N opinion, the Board, like the immigration judge,

addressed whether Mustafa had been persecuted on account of

(continued...)

Mukasey, 526 F.3d 968, 972 (7th Cir. 2008). As with an

application for asylum, a showing of past persecution

creates a rebuttable presumption that the applicant’s

life or freedom would be threatened in the future

for the purpose of withholding of removal. 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(b)(1).

A. Past Persecution by Rehman and His Associates

Mustafa’s claims for relief are premised on his assertion

that he has been and will be persecuted on account of

his political opinion in Pakistan. But Mustafa does not

argue that his assailants targeted him on account of

his membership in the PML-N. Rather, he contends

that they viewed him as being an opponent of or a

traitor to their party for having cooperated in the

Musharraf government’s politically motivated prosecution of Rehman. To succeed on a claim that one suffered 7
18 No. 12-2456

(...continued) 7

an actual or imputed anti-corruption political opinion. Mustafa’s

focus on appeal, however, is on the anti-PML-N political opinion

he contends his attackers imputed to him.

persecution due to an imputed political opinion, an

applicant must show (1) that his persecutors attributed

a political opinion to him and (2) that the attributed

opinion motivated the persecution. Sankoh v. Mukasey,

539 F.3d 456, 471 (7th Cir. 2008). In its opinion, the

Board concluded that there was insufficient evidence in

the record to support Mustafa’s contention that Rehman

and his followers perceived Mustafa to have defected

their political party. Instead, the Board affirmed the

immigration judge’s conclusion that the context of the

attacks suggested that Mustafa was seen as having betrayed Rehman personally.

This court has repeatedly held that “[a] personal

dispute, no matter how nasty, cannot support an alien’s

claim of asylum.” Marquez v. INS, 105 F.3d 374, 380

(7th Cir. 1997); see also Wang v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 993,

998 (7th Cir. 2006). And there is surely evidence in the

record to support the view that Mustafa’s attackers were

motivated in part by a personal dispute. But the critical

question here is whether the record compels this court to

conclude that Rehman and his followers were also motivated by a perception that Mustafa acted with an antiPML-N sentiment in cooperating with the Musharraf

government. During Mustafa’s hearing, his counsel

acknowledged that the persecution at its core involved
No. 12-2456 19

a dispute between two parties, but clarified that in Pakistan, investigations like the one against Rehman are part

of the country’s politics. Mustafa argues that turning

against Rehman for the purpose of an investigation was

equivalent to turning against the party itself and that

Mustafa’s assailants had indicated their disapproval by

calling him a “traitor” during their attack.

In her decision, the immigration judge cited the

doctrine of mixed motives with approval but did not

engage in a thorough discussion or evaluation of the

evidence of dual motives Mustafa presented. The Board

similarly overlooked significant circumstantial evidence

when it rejected the proposition that Rehman and his

associates viewed Mustafa as having an anti-PML-N

opinion. Specifically, the Board concluded that the attackers’ use of the word “traitor” implied that Mustafa

had betrayed Rehman personally only because the attackers had also warned Mustafa not to “cross” Rehman.

But this conclusion does not address the larger factual

context in which the harassment and attacks occurred.

Following the upheaval in Pakistan in 1999, the

Musharraf regime arbitrarily arrested and detained

political figures from the Sharif government in an

attempt to suppress and control the political opposition

and discredit high-ranking members of the PML-N. The

Musharraf government gave Mustafa the “choice” of

participating in its investigation of a former Senator

and close associate of a former prime minister or having

his family arrested. Mustafa informed the Musharraf

government of his knowledge of Rehman’s financial

affairs, including several large transfers of funds, and in
20 No. 12-2456

 The Board also deferred to the immigration judge’s conclu- 8

sion that the attackers had “let [Mustafa] know that he was

paying the price for providing information about Mr. Rehman

to the authorities—not because of any difference of political

opinion between the two men.” The immigration judge’s

reading of the attackers’ message, however, was based on

the same limited view of the context in which the

beating occurred.

effect, assisted in the Musharraf government’s politically

motivated takedown of a PML-N official. Following

his release from prison and during an encounter with

Mustafa, Rehman disagreed with Mustafa’s explanation

for having assisted the Musharraf government and emphasized his political power in delivering a threat. He

indicated that he had been running the country, that he

was as powerful as the prime minister, and that he could

quickly destroy Mustafa. After Mustafa returned to

Pakistan, four men who accused him of being a “traitor”

beat him for more than twenty minutes until he

lost consciousness, and the police took no action.8

The immigration judge and the Board also overlooked

the portion of Dr. Parker’s affidavit addressing the attack

Mustafa experienced in Pakistan in 2003. Dr. Parker

explained that most members of the PML-N are highly

loyal to Sharif and his associates and that it is common

for political parties in Pakistan to employ “thugs” to

carry out retaliatory acts against those they view as

enemies. The affidavit also indicated that it is Dr. Parker’s

belief that Mustafa had been attacked by “thugs”

working for the PML-N and that the attack fit the mold
No. 12-2456 21

of political retaliation. The immigration judge’s only

reference to the affidavit related to Dr. Parker’s

opinion about the likelihood that Mustafa would face

persecution from the Musharraf government. Because

Dr. Parker signed the affidavit in 2007 while the

Musharraf regime was still in power, the immigration

judge explained that the affidavit did little to support

the view that Mustafa could face persecution from

the current Zardari government. But the fact that Dr.

Parker authored the report in 2007 does not alter the

relevance of her testimony relating to the attack that

occurred in 2003.

Contrary to the Attorney General’s suggestion, this case

is distinguishable from Tonoyan v. Mukasey, 288 F. App’x

278 (7th Cir. 2008) (nonprecedential decision), in which

we held that a petitioner who faced persecution for

having reported the identity of an individual involved

in a politically motivated attack did not show that his

persecutors “were motivated, at least in part, by an

actual or imputed political opinion.” Id. at 282 (internal

quotation marks omitted). In Tonoyan, an Armenian

citizen who had witnessed a crime involving a local

political candidate applied for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the CAT. Id. at 279. The

alleged persecution in Tonoyan occurred in close proximity to a local election for an office similar to that of a

mayor in the United States. Id. Shortly before the election, one of the challenging candidates dropped out

of the race and endorsed the other challenger. Id. The

day after the endorsement, Tonoyan witnessed four men,

one of whom he recognized to be the nephew of the
22 No. 12-2456

incumbent in the race, attack the candidate who had

dropped out and endorsed the remaining challenger. Id.

At first, Tonoyan told the police that he did not know

any of the men involved in the attack because he was

afraid of the incumbent’s nephew. Id. at 280. But the

police beat him until he gave them the nephew’s name.

Id. The next week, four men came to Tonoyan’s house

and attacked him. Id. The men told Tonoyan they were

carrying out the attack for the incumbent’s nephew and

threatened to kill him if he testified against their friend. Id.

Although the immigration judge found Tonoyan credible, she denied his request for asylum, concluding that

the men attacked him not on account of an imputed

political opinion, but because they wanted to prevent

him from testifying against their friend. Id. at 280-81.

The Board affirmed. Id. at 281. On appeal to this court,

Tonoyan argued that the immigration judge and the

Board erred by not engaging in a mixed-motives analysis. Id. at 281. We denied the petition for review in

an order, concluding that even if Tonoyan had administratively exhausted his mixed-motives claim, he could

not point to any evidence in the record that his

attackers had acted in part on account of an imputed

political opinion that the immigration judge and the

Board had not considered. Id. at 282. We also held that

substantial evidence supported the immigration judge’s

and the Board’s conclusion that Tonoyan was not persecuted on account of an imputed political opinion.

Although political actors were involved in the crime

Tonoyan witnessed, we explained that his attackers

“said that they were attacking him for [the nephew] and
No. 12-2456 23

threatened to kill him if he testified against [their

friend]; they did not mention [the incumbent’s name]

or the upcoming election.” Id.

Here, unlike in Tonoyan, Mustafa’s attackers explicitly

stated that they were carrying out their attack on behalf

of a high-ranking member of the PML-N. The immigration judge and the Board did not address evidence in

the record of the highly polarized political context in

which the attacks occurred. The immigration judge and

the Board also omitted any reference to Rehman’s conversation with Mustafa in which Rehman disagreed

with Mustafa’s explanation for having cooperated with

the Musharraf government and emphasized his political

power in delivering a threat. Moreover, the immigration

judge and the Board dismissed without explanation the

portion of Dr. Parker’s testimony in which she analyzed

the political nature of the 2003 attack. Collectively, this

evidence, which was present in the record but absent

from the analysis below, sheds a different light on

Mustafa’s attackers’ use of the word “traitor” during the

beating. Mustafa assisted in the takedown of a highranking member of the PML-N immediately after the

1999 shift in power in Pakistan, and in the context of

the facts articulated above, it would be unreasonable to

conclude that his actions were viewed by his attackers

as solely apolitical.

We have repeatedly held that an applicant is entitled to

a reasoned analysis of his case, “not one which wholly

ignores or disregards relevant, probative evidence.”

Gjerazi, 435 F.3d at 813; see also Mohideen, 416 F.3d at 571.
24 No. 12-2456

In concluding that Mustafa’s attackers were motivated

simply by a personal dispute, the immigration judge

and the Board erred in disregarding evidence in the

record that the attackers acted with mixed motives. This

case presents a unique set of facts that ultimately

compel the conclusion that Mustafa’s attackers were

motivated in part by an anti-PML-N political opinion

they attributed to him. Mustafa is therefore entitled to

a presumption in favor of granting asylum. On remand,

the government will have the opportunity to rebut that

presumption by proving that “[t]here has been a fundamental change in circumstances such that [he] no

longer has a well-founded fear of persecution” or that he

“could avoid persecution by relocating to another part

of” Pakistan if “it would be reasonable to expect [him]

to do so.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i).

The immigration judge’s denial of Mustafa’s withholding of removal claim was premised entirely on her

initial determination that Mustafa was not persecuted

on account of political opinion. Having determined

that the record compels a contrary conclusion, Mustafa

is also entitled to a presumption that his life or

freedom would be threatened if he were to return

to Pakistan. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i). On remand,

the government may rebut this presumption by

showing a fundamental change in circumstances or the

reasonableness of a safe relocation elsewhere in Pakistan. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(ii).
No. 12-2456 25

B. Fear of Persecution by the Zardari Government

Mustafa argues that the immigration judge and the

Board also erred in refusing to consider the persecution he

could face from the current government in Pakistan on

account of his membership in the PML-N and his prior

close association with Rehman and Sharif. He further

contends that members of the Zardari government could,

under threat of arrest, force him to provide information about Rehman if Rehman were arrested and prosecuted on actual or fabricated charges. Mustafa testified

that President Zardari has an even greater reason to

seek retribution against Rehman than the Musharraf

government because President Zardari blames Rehman

for arbitrarily imprisoning him under harsh conditions

and for an alleged assassination attempt that occurred

while he was in the custody of the Sharif government.

In dismissing Mustafa’s arguments relating to the

Zardari government, the Board concluded that Mustafa

did not sufficiently articulate a fear of persecution

before the immigration judge and did not adequately

explain why the government would seek to harm him.

With regard to Mustafa’s general argument that the

Zardari government will target him on account of his

membership in the PML-N, we agree with the Board

that Mustafa did not sufficiently articulate this fear to

the immigration judge. But even if he had, his argument would fall short. Mustafa does not cite to any document or testimony in the record to support his contention that the Zardari government is taking action

against political leaders and factions that are no longer
26 No. 12-2456

in power. The Board appropriately rejected Mustafa’s

reliance on the portion of Dr. Parker’s testimony in

which she discussed the likelihood that Mustafa would

be persecuted by the current Pakistani government.

Dr. Parker signed her affidavit in 2007 before President

Zardari was elected and before the PML-N gained a

considerable number of seats in the parliament. The

current government in Pakistan is therefore significantly

different from the government Dr. Parker referenced,

and there is no indication that the Zardari government

has followed the Musharraf government’s practice of

arbitrarily arresting members of the PML-N. And even

if the Zardari government were to target Sharif’s

followers, it is not clear why the government would

target Mustafa, someone who participated in an investigation against Rehman under the Musharraf government.

Relatedly, Mustafa argues that if he were to return to

Pakistan, the Zardari government would single him out

for his prior close association with Rehman and knowledge of Rehman’s financial affairs and force him,

under threat of arrest, to cooperate in an investigation

against Rehman. He contends that his prior experience

with the Musharraf government demonstrates the likelihood that he would be targeted by the Zardari government as a source of information. But Mustafa also

explains that President Zardari holds Rehman

responsible for having imprisoned him under harsh

conditions and for an alleged assassination attempt

against Zardari that occurred while he was in the

custody of the Sharif government. He does not articulate

why the Zardari government would be interested in
No. 12-2456 27

Mustafa’s knowledge of Rehman’s financial affairs in

the context of a murder investigation and does not allege

that he has any special knowledge of Rehman’s treatment of Zardari. The conclusion that Mustafa did not

articulate a well-founded fear of persecution by

President Zardari and his government is thus supported

by the evidence in the record.

On remand, the Board should therefore focus its attention on Mustafa’s fear of persecution by Rehman and

his associates.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we GRANT Mustafa’s petition for review and REMAND to the Board for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

2-11-13