husband under the CAT. Id. at 763. The BIA agreed with the IJ that Kone’s claim was an impermissible derivative claim and denied Kone’s appeal. Id. However, the Seventh Circuit accepted Kone’s argument, concluding that “the prospect of FGM of one’s child can constitute harm to an unwilling parent.” Id. at 765. Accordingly, the court remanded the case for the BIA to consider whether Kone successfully made out claims of “direct, as opposed to derivative, persecution of the petitioner.” Id.; see also Kone v. Holder, 596 F.3d 141, 153 (2d Cir.2010) (remanding a petitioner’s claim for the BIA to consider whether “a mother who was herself a victim of genital mutilation” experiences persecution when her daughter may “suffer the same fate”); Abay v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 634, 642 (6th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Our circuit has not yet addressed the
recognizing as an element of pain and suffering holding that because persecution cannot be based on a fear of psychological harm alone petitioner was ineligible for withholding of removal based on the psychological harm she would suffer if her us citizen daughter were to undergo fgm recognizing that withholding of removal claims must fail if petitioner is unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim and the claims are based on the same factual predicate recognizing as separate from pain and suffering recognizing that a petitioner for asylum and withholding of removal can demonstrate direct persecution based on the harm of being forced to witness the pain and suffering of her daughter if she were subjected to fgm