or a high-profile role in the MDC either in Zimbabwe or in the United States,” the evidence was not sufficient to show that it is more likely than not that they would be persecuted upon their return to Zimbabwe. Id. at 107 (IJ Dec. at 24). The BIA accepted the IJ’s reasoning, noting that “a generalized or random possibility of persecution is generally insufficient to establish persecution.” Id. at 4 (BIA Dec. at 2). Thus, both the IJ and the BIA denied withholding of removal because they concluded that the Mandebvus failed to show that any abuse leveled against them in the future would be because o/political opinion. A. Protected Ground: Political Opinion The Mandebvus argue that ZANU-PF targeted them for abuse because they were perceived as anti-government. See Haider, 595 F.3d at 284 (<HOLDING>). The IJ found that the Mandeb-vus, because of
holding that opposition to a gangs criminal activity is not a protected political opinion holding that applicant failed to establish imputed political opinion where he presented no evidence that an antigovernmental guerilla group imputed his fathers political beliefs to him holding that fathers military service alone was neither political opinion nor sufficient to establish imputed political opinion holding that imputed political opinion is a protected ground holding that persecution was on account of political opinion because petitioners prosecutorial investigation into acts of political corruption was by its very nature political