Khalid v. Attorney General of the United States, 692 F. App'x 681

Background

Malik Nadeem Khalid, Pakistani national, entered U.S. in 1991 without documentation; later placed in removal proceedings and filed asylum/adjustment applications; removal proceedings reopened in 2008 after DHS charged him as an alien without valid travel documents.
Khalid’s testimony: past beatings and arrests in Pakistan in early 1990s tied to affiliation with Pakistan People’s Party (PPP); family later joined PML-Q; father and brother arrested in 2008 on allegedly politically motivated charges; nephew shot in 2013 (Khalid alleges political motive).
Khalid sought withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), arguing risk of torture by PML-N (ruling party) because of his family’s PML-Q ties and risk from terrorists because he is perceived as "Americanized."
IJ initially granted withholding of removal (and did not reach CAT); BIA reversed and dismissed CAT claim as waived; Third Circuit remanded because IJ never adjudicated CAT; IJ on remand denied CAT protection for failure to show it was "more likely than not" he would be tortured upon return.
BIA dismissed Khalid’s appeal of the CAT denial, refusing to consider five unauthenticated news articles submitted for the first time on appeal and concluding the record did not compel a finding of likelihood of torture by public officials or with their acquiescence.
Khalid petitioned for review; the Third Circuit affirmed the BIA, applying the deferential substantial-evidence/"compels a contrary conclusion" standard and denying CAT relief.

Issues

Issue	Khalid's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether record compels finding that Khalid would more likely than not be tortured if returned to Pakistan (CAT standard)	Khalid: family’s PML-Q ties, 2008 arrests, 2013 shooting, and news about PML-N violence show likely torture by state actors or with their acquiescence	BIA/IJ: evidence is speculative, lacks proof of targeting or state involvement; record does not show clear probability of torture	Held: No — substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief; record does not compel contrary finding
Whether BIA erred in declining to consider five unauthenticated online news articles submitted on appeal	Khalid: articles show PML-N commits violence against PML-Q and would likely harm him	BIA: as appellate body, cannot consider new evidence; Khalid should have moved to remand; even if considered, articles do not show likely torture of relatives	Held: BIA properly declined to consider the articles; remand motion required and articles would not change outcome
Whether past incidents (2008 arrests; nephew’s 2013 shooting) demonstrate likelihood of future torture	Khalid: past events indicate continuing targeting of his family and imputation of political affiliation to him	BIA/IJ: incidents are isolated, not shown to be politically motivated (police report suggests personal quarrel); family members remain in Pakistan unharmed	Held: Past incidents insufficiently connected to state-sanctioned torture risk; IJ/BIA findings upheld
Whether risk from non-state actors/terrorists due to "Americanization" qualifies for CAT protection	Khalid: perceived Americanization makes him a terrorist target and therefore at risk of torture by actors acting with state acquiescence	BIA/IJ: Record contains no evidence that Americanized Pakistanis are targeted or that anti-American motive leads to torture with state involvement	Held: No competent evidence of targeting by terrorists sufficient to meet CAT standard

Key Cases Cited

Garcia v. Attorney General, 665 F.3d 496 (3d Cir. 2011) (standard of review for BIA factual findings; "compels a contrary conclusion" test)
Kibinda v. Attorney General, 477 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2007) (CAT requires applicant to show it is more likely than not they would be tortured)
Jarbough v. Attorney General, 483 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2007) (applying "compels a contrary conclusion" standard to factual determinations)