rise to the level of past persecution.” Further, the IJ’s conclusion that Shamin does not have an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution is supported by substantial evidence. Without evidence of past persecution, Shamin had to demonstrate that he genuinely fears persecution on account of his involvement in the MQM and that his fear is objectively reasonable. See Boci v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 762, 767 (7th Cir.2007). “The petitioner’s allegations, if true, describe general social strife in Pakistan, which relates to, but are not necessarily the result of any of the [statutory] grounds” that would entitle them to asylum. Akhtar v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 399, 405 (6th Cir.2005) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Hor v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 482, 486 (7th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). While the situation in Pakistan may be
holding that the concerns that require fraud to be pleaded with particularity are even more urgent in a civil rico action holding where plan language can be interpreted both to grant discretion and not to grant discretion plan does not unambiguously grant discretion holding professional rules do not provide basis for civil liability holding a sentencing court is not required to grant probation holding that even civil wars do not require immigration officials to grant asylum to either sides supporters