in order to persecute the mentally ill and Fahmy conceded that the unavailability of the drug had nothing to do with him personally. “Because a critical element of persecution is motive, a petitioner ‘must provide some evidence of it, direct or circumstantial.’ ” Al-Ghorbani, 585 F.3d at 997 (quoting Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483, 112 S.Ct. 812). The absence of any evidence of motive is fatal to Fahmy’s claim. See Kholyavskiy v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 555, 573-74 (7th Cir.2008) (finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the unavailability of Paxil and Klonopin in Russia was the result of the Russian government’s attempt to injure the petitioner or, more generally, individuals with mental illness); Soobrian v. Atty. Gen. of U.S., 388 Fed.Appx. 182, 191 (3d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Fahmy’s fear of arrest and
holding that the statute that provides for a verdict of guilty but mentally ill does not preclude a death sentence as the result of such a verdict holding that the standard for withholding of removal is a showing that it is more likely than not that a petitioner will face persecution upon her return holding that the petitioner did not establish grounds for withholding of removal because the alleged persecution appears to be a simple lack of resources for the mentally hi in guyana not an intent on the part of the government to persecute mentally ill persons holding that petitioners who apply for withholding of removal must establish that a statutorily protected ground was a reason for their persecution holding that the petitioner with mental illness did not qualify for relief under the cat because all detainees experienced terrible prison conditions which were not targeted at mentally ill people