702 F.3d 897
7th Cir.2012Background
- Shaikh and husband Hafsa and Asim Shaikh are Pakistani citizens seeking asylum in the United States.
- They allege they were targeted and persecuted by the MQM, a Mohajir-dominated political group in Karachi.
- From 1999 onward Hafsa faced MQM hostility due to an extramarital relationship with Asim and later political pressure.
- Between 2002 and 2005 the Shaikhs suffered violent incidents including a kidnapping of Asim and assaults on Hafsa and Asim.
- The Immigration Judge denied asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, finding no central political motive and lack of Pakistan’s protection.
- The Board affirmed, concluding MQM’s violence was not primarily motivated by Hafsa/Asim’s political opinions, only having secondary political animus at best.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether political opinion was a central motive for persecution | Shaikh argues political opinion was a central motive. | Board/IJ found political opinion not a central motive; more a secondary factor. | No; substantial evidence supports central-motive not established. |
| Whether the Real ID Act’s central-reason standard was misapplied | Asylum requires at least one central reason; mixed motives allowed. | Court applied central-reason standard correctly, allowing mixed motives. | Correctly applied; protected ground need only be a central reason, not sole/main motive. |
| Whether the nationality claim was exhausted or waived | Shaikh argued MQM persecution based on nationality. | Issue not raised below; waived for lack of exhaustion. | Waived/exhaustion required; not reviewable on this record. |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (requires central reason standard for persecution inquiry)
- Bueso-Avila v. Holder, 663 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2011) (mixed-motive framework under Real ID Act remains viable)
- Martinez-Buendia v. Holder, 616 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2010) (recognizes multiple motives may drive persecution)
- Mohideen v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2005) (notes mixed motives permissible under asylum standard)
- Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (protective-ground must be a central reason among motives)
- Ndayshimiye v. Attorney General, 557 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 2009) (protected ground can be central among multiple motives)