Baig v. Sessions
688 F. App'x 97
2d Cir.2017Background
- Petitioner Mirza Nasir Baig, a Pakistani national and former LPR, faced removal proceedings and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- Baig moved to terminate proceedings, arguing 8 U.S.C. § 1256(a)’s five-year rescission statute of limitations barred initiation of removal.
- The Immigration Judge denied termination and denied asylum, finding no past persecution and that Baig lacked an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the IJ’s denial of relief but declined to rely on the IJ’s specific findings about Baig’s particular social group and discretionary asylum merits; the BIA agreed Baig suffered no past persecution and rejected his future-fear claim.
- Baig appealed to the Second Circuit, which reviewed legal questions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Baig’s Argument | Sessions’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1256(a)’s five-year rescission statute of limitations bars removal proceedings | §1256(a) bars initiation of removal after five years | §1256(a) does not apply to removal proceedings; removal may proceed | Court held Adams v. Holder binding: §1256(a) does not apply to removal; motion to terminate denied |
| Whether Baig demonstrated eligibility for asylum, withholding, or CAT based on fear of future persecution | Baig claimed Taliban/ kidnappers target Pakistanis perceived as wealthy/Americanized; cited past attempted kidnapping, news reports, State Dept. warnings | Evidence shows countrywide crime but not proof persons similarly situated would be targeted; attempted kidnapping did not rise to persecution and was remote in time | Court upheld agency finding that Baig failed to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution; denial of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Holder, 692 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2012) (holds §1256(a) limitations period does not apply to removal proceedings)
- Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005) (treatment of IJ decision as modified and supplemented by the BIA)
- Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2005) (same procedural-review principles)
- Dong Zhong Zheng v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 277 (2d Cir. 2009) (well-founded fear standard: subjective fear that is objectively reasonable)
- Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2005) (fear based on speculation is insufficient)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (weight of evidence largely within the IJ’s discretion)
- Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (appellate court defers to agency on conflicting record evidence)
- Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (higher standards for withholding and CAT relief follow denial of asylum)