Daya Bathula v. Eric Holder, Jr.
723 F.3d 889
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Daya Dinkar Bathula and Bathula Dinkar Christopher Reddy, Indian citizens, sought asylum, withholding, and CAT relief in the U.S. after Reddy testified at a murder trial that convicted local "land mafia" members.
- After the trial Reddy and his family received threats, occasional physical harassment (rocks thrown, run-off-the-road incident), episodic police protection while his party (TDP) was in power, and an alleged attempted kidnapping of their daughter.
- IJ found much of the core narrative credible but discounted key details (Reddy’s two years in hiding; inconsistencies about the daughter’s kidnapping) and concluded the conduct amounted to harassment/threats, not past persecution.
- The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ, adding that harms appeared to be personal retribution (no nexus to a protected ground), police could protect the family, and internal relocation in India was reasonable.
- Petitioners moved to reopen claiming ineffective assistance: prior counsel failed to call their daughter and declined to appeal the CAT claim. The BIA denied reopening for lack of prejudice. Petitioners petitioned this court for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners suffered past persecution | Reddy & Bathula: threats, harassment, attempted kidnapping, and other hostile acts aggregated to past persecution | Gov't: incidents were threats/harassment; no serious physical harm occurred; not persecution | Court: Substantial evidence supports agency finding of harassment, not past persecution |
| Whether harms were "on account of" a protected ground (nexus) | Petitioners: targeted for participating in legal process / Reddy’s TDP/political ties | Gov't: harms were personal retaliation for testimony; Arjun was also TDP; timing of protection loss not dispositive | Court: Substantial evidence supports BIA that harms were personal retribution, not on account of protected ground |
| Whether internal relocation or government protection unavailable; CAT viability | Petitioners: police protection ended after regime change; CAT requires no nexus so counsel’s failure to pursue it was prejudicial | Gov't: evidence shows police could protect or petitioners could relocate; CAT has higher torture showing requirement; relocation considered in CAT analysis | Court: Agency reasonably concluded relocation was possible; CAT claim not stronger; failure to pursue CAT was not prejudicial |
| Whether prior counsel’s omissions prejudiced motion to reopen (ineffective assistance) | Petitioners: daughter’s affidavit would corroborate serious incidents and support CAT/relocation arguments; counsel’s tactical choices were deficient | Gov't: additional evidence would not cure nexus or establish torture or make relocation unreasonable | Held: No abuse of discretion; BIA reasonably found no prejudice from counsel’s actions |
Key Cases Cited
- Gatimi v. Holder, 578 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2009) (personal motives vs. protected-ground nexus analysis)
- Wang v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2006) (retribution/personal animus distinctions)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (substantial-evidence standard and burden for nexus)
- Bejko v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2006) (threats alone generally insufficient for past persecution)
- Stanojkova v. Holder, 645 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 2011) (distinguishing harassment from persecution)
- Boykov v. INS, 109 F.3d 413 (7th Cir. 1997) (credible, imminent threats can in extreme cases constitute persecution)
- Mustafa v. Holder, 707 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard for withholding: clear probability)