Petitioner advances several arguments concerning past persecution, but his arguments fail. Patel did not provide credible examples of past persecution based on his ethnicity. Petitioner was never arrested, imprisoned, or detained. He and his wife have traveled into and from Kenya without difficulty. To bolster his asylum claim, Patel testified to various events, and the most recent occurred in 1997. The record shows that Petitioner and his family have been the victim of several crimes, but such generalized lawlessness normally does not constitute persecution. See Singh, 134 F.3d at 967 (stating that “[m]ere generalized lawlessness and violence between diverse populations ... generally is not sufficient” to obtain asylum); see also Meghani v. INS, 236 F.3d 843, 847 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Mitev v. INS, 67 F.3d 1325, 1330-31 (7th
holding that a group of colombian citizens who feared kidnapping due to their wealth did not establish eligibility for asylum holding cjonditions of political upheaval which affect the populace as a whole or in large part are generally insufficient to establish eligibility for asylum holding that because the ij denied an asylum application as untimely we lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction to review the final order of removal as it pertained to the asylum claim holding that asylum seeker failed to establish well founded fear of persecution based on oppression of asylum seekers family unrelated to asylum seekers actions holding that documentary evidence pertaining to the asylum applicant himself and to the events in which he was involved  can independently establish facts essential to  an asylum claim