cousin’s political views. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Fahmy did not establish a likelihood of persecution by Egyptian authorities because of his mental illness. Fahmy’s main argument is that his critical medication, Seroquel, is unavailable in Egypt, and therefore he likely will relapse and subject himself to heightened scrutiny by the Egyptian authorities, and then face arrest and detention for his “weird” behavior. But there is no evidence in the record that the Egyptian government is denying Seroquel to people with paranoid if he exhibits symptoms of mental illness is highly generalized. A generalized fear will not establish the threat to an alien’s life or freedom that section 231(b)(3)(A) requires. Cf. Dieng v. Holder, 698 F.3d 866, 872 (6th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). There is no evidence in the record that
holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution holding that absent past persecution an alien can demonstrate eligibility for asylum based on a wellfounded fear of future persecution by demonstrating that he or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable holding that to qualify for asylum the fear of future persecution must be based on reasonably specific information showing a real threat to individual persecution not mere assertions of fear of possible persecution or speculative conclusions quoting mapouya 487 f3d at 412 holding that to establish asylum eligibility based on future persecution an applicant must show that he or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable holding that to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution an applicant must establish that he would be singled out for persecution or that there was a pattern or practice of persecution of similarlysituated individuals