Bilal Hussain v. Jeffrey Rosen
985 F.3d 634
| 9th Cir. | 2021Background
- Bilal Hussain, a Pakistani national, entered near Otay Mesa without valid documents and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection claiming fear of the Taliban.
- Hussain testified the Taliban burned his jewelry shop in 2007 and that a 2012 convoy attack caused loss of inventory; he testified he and his family were never personally injured or specifically threatened in Pakistan prior to leaving in 2015.
- The IJ found Hussain credible but concluded his claims described generalized violence, not targeted past persecution; the IJ also found relocation within Pakistan reasonable and denied relief.
- The BIA affirmed, holding Hussain never alleged individualized targeting or torture, and that the IJ afforded him due process and adequate opportunity to present evidence.
- Hussain petitioned for review; the Ninth Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence on factual findings and de novo on due process, and denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Hussain's Argument | Rosen's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process — IJ failed to develop record / probe | IJ didn’t explain elements or ask specific, probing questions; deprived opportunity to present critical testimony | IJ explained rights, provided LOP, asked broad and follow-up questions; petitioner controlled scope by his answers | No due process violation; IJ provided reasonable opportunity and no substantial prejudice shown |
| Past persecution — did harms amount to persecution? | Burned shop, convoy loss, threats, economic and psychological harm cumulatively show persecution | Incidents were generalized violence; no individualized targeting on protected ground; insufficient evidence of threats or torture | Substantial evidence supports denial: harms were generalized, not individually targeted persecution |
| Government inability/unwillingness to control Taliban | Pakistani government unable to protect Shias in region; thus cannot prevent persecution | Country reports show significant counterterrorism efforts; inability to prevent every attack does not prove inability/unwillingness | BIA reasonably found Pakistan not unable/unwilling to control Taliban based on evidence of government efforts |
| Internal relocation — would relocation be unreasonable? | Relocation unrealistic due to family ties, hardship, travel restrictions in FATA | Relocation to other regions is feasible and not unreasonable; inconveniences insufficient | Relocation within Pakistan would be reasonable; defeats well-founded fear claim |
| CAT — likelihood of torture | Generalized violence and country reports show risk of torture if returned | No particularized threat; no evidence petitioner was or would be tortured; government combats militants | Denied: petitioner failed to show torture more likely than not or prior torture; CAT claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929 (treats unfulfilled threats as future danger, not per se past persecution)
- Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168 (vague, conclusory allegations insufficient to show persecution)
- Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725 (due process requires opportunity to present testimony; distinguishes IJ duties)
- Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967 (prohibits proceedings so unfair petitioner cannot reasonably present case)
- Oshodi v. Holder, 729 F.3d 883 (focuses due process inquiry on whether IJ prevented significant testimony)
- Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018 (elements required to prove past persecution and nexus)
- Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (well-founded fear standard for future persecution)
- Kaiser v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 653 (relocation within country bars asylum unless unreasonable)
- Mashiri v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 1112 (cumulative harms and psychological injury in persecution analysis)
- Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733 (country reports of general persecution insufficient for CAT relief)