Opinion ID: 4572660
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The BIA's Initial Decision

Text: In affirming the IJ's ruling, the BIA largely echoed the IJ's reasoning. Despite Zhakira's assertion that he had not claimed fear of persecution based on a social group, the BIA concluded that he had done so, in effect, by arguing that he would be targeted by Al-Shabaab due to his western manner, his time in the United States and his United States citizen children. The BIA agreed with the IJ that such a social group lacks both the requisite particularity and social distinction to be cognizable. However, in its discussion of the social group claim, the BIA erroneously included a sentence that is plainly inapplicable to Zhakira's circumstances, stating that the evidence does not support the social distinction of a group comprised of Kenyan women who lack the presence of an adult male, such as a boyfriend, husband, or father, to offer protection. With respect to Zhakira's religion-based claim, the BIA acknowledged Al-Shabaab's terrorist activity in Kenya aimed at non-Muslims, but it noted that 82 percent of Kenya's population is Christian and that the isolated attacks, though horrific, do not support the respondent's claim that he will face persecution or that there is a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in Kenya. The panel also found that the record does not show the inability or an unwillingness on the part of the government to stop the large number of attacks by Al-Shabaab. - 7 - The BIA found no error in the IJ's failure to address Zhakira's political opinion as a basis for asylum, concluding that he did not develop such a claim separate from his religion-based claim. Moreover, the BIA stated, the record lacks evidence that Zhakira has been politically active against Al-Shabaab or that the terrorists have any interest in him in this regard. Finally, the BIA agreed with the IJ that Zhakira had not shown eligibility for CAT relief.