Irfan Ali v. U.S. Attorney General
931 F.3d 1327
| 11th Cir. | 2019Background
- Petitioner Irfan Ali, an Ahmadi from Pakistan, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after removal proceedings based on unlawful entry.
- Ali alleged both individual past persecution (forced to worship in secret; mosque closures; security threats) and group-based persecution of Pakistani Ahmadis (legal prohibitions, violence, blasphemy prosecutions).
- The IJ denied relief; the Board affirmed denial of asylum and withholding, concluding Pakistani law guarantees religious freedom and Ali freely practiced his faith; the Board deemed CAT claim waived.
- Ali (pro se) pointed to record evidence the IJ and Board had overlooked: mosque closures, policing failures, bans on Ahmadi worship practices, restrictions on texts, pilgrimage barriers, and threats that forced secret worship.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the Board gave "reasoned consideration" to highly relevant evidence and concluded the Board’s opinion failed to address critical record evidence, warranting vacatur and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Ali's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board gave "reasoned consideration" to record evidence | Board ignored highly relevant evidence (mosque closures, secret worship, statutory and de facto restrictions) making its decision unreviewable | Board relied on statutory guarantees and Ali's attendance at mosque to deny claims | Court: Board failed to provide reasoned consideration; VACATE and REMAND |
| Whether Ali suffered past persecution for asylum | Ali: forced to practice in secret; mosque shut down due to threats; security plans required | Govt: incidents amounted to harassment, not persecution; law protects religious freedom | Court: Record compels consideration of evidence showing secret worship; Board must address it on remand |
| Group persecution of Ahmadis (pattern or practice) | Ali: Ahmadis face legal and societal restrictions (blasphemy prosecutions, banned identification as Muslims, barred literature, pilgrimage and voting restrictions) | Govt: State protections and constitutional guarantees mitigate claims | Court: Board ignored highly relevant evidence of de jure and de facto targeting; must analyze on remand |
| Exhaustion of CAT claim | Ali did not raise CAT on appeal | Govt: CAT claim waived for failure to exhaust administrative remedies | Court: Agreed; no jurisdiction to consider CAT claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Sama v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 887 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2018) (asylum standards: past persecution or well‑founded fear)
- Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941 (11th Cir. 2010) (persecution by government or uncontrollable nonstate actors)
- Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369 (11th Cir. 2006) (reasoned‑consideration requirement)
- Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d 860 (11th Cir. 2018) (agency must list basic facts and reasoning)
- Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792 (11th Cir. 2016) (grounds for remand when Board fails to explain rejection of logical conclusions)
- Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2015) (agency decision so incomplete it is unreviewable)
- Min Yong Huang v. Holder, 774 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2014) (Board must discuss highly relevant evidence)
- Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2009) (practicing religion underground can constitute persecution)
- Shi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 707 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2013) (record that compels contrary conclusion requires reversal)
- Imelda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 611 F.3d 724 (11th Cir. 2010) (compelled‑conclusion standard)
- Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (review depends on Board decision and explicit adoption of IJ findings)