Harkirat Singh v. Merrick Garland, 20-72856

Petitioner Harkirat Singh, an Indian national, was allegedly mistreated by local politician Ashuk Kumar after a business dispute over loan payments; Kumar used police to punish Singh.
Singh applied for asylum and withholding of removal, arguing he was targeted on account of a protected ground (political opinion or similar), and later sought relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied asylum and withholding but granted CAT relief; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's denial of asylum and withholding.
On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, Singh also attempted to raise a "pattern or practice" theory that he had not presented to the IJ.
The Ninth Circuit applied substantial-evidence review to the IJ/BIA factual findings and concluded Kumar’s actions were motivated by personal retribution tied to the business dispute, not a protected ground.
The court held Singh waived the pattern-and-practice claim by failing to exhaust it before the IJ and denied the petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Singh was persecuted "on account of" a protected ground (asylum/withholding nexus)	Singh: Kumar targeted him for a protected characteristic (political opinion/membership)	Government/BIA: Kumar acted out of personal retribution over a business dispute, not because of a protected ground	Held: Substantial evidence supports that motive was personal retribution; no nexus to protected ground; asylum/withholding denied
Whether Singh may raise a pattern-and-practice claim on appeal	Singh: The widespread persecution theory should be considered	Government/BIA: Claim was not raised before the IJ and is therefore waived; BIA cannot engage in factfinding on appeal	Held: Waived for failure to exhaust before the IJ; BIA properly declined to consider it

INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (nexus to a protected ground is required for asylum/withholding)
Grava v. INS, 205 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2000) (purely personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground)
Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2013) (mistreatment motivated purely by personal retribution does not support an asylum claim)
Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2003) (pattern-or-practice persecution relieves need to show individualized targeting)
Garcia-Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 2018) (when BIA affirms IJ, appellate review covers both decisions)
Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (substantial-evidence standard governs review of factual findings)
Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2004) (elements of asylum eligibility: persecution on account of listed protected grounds)
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (asylum requires a protected ground to be "one central reason" for harm)
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (withholding requires the protected ground to be "a reason" for the harm)