Kumar v. Garland, 20-2689

Petitioner Rahul Kumar, an Indian national, testified he was arrested by police, held overnight, and beaten (punched, kicked, beaten with belts) while pressured to join the Badal Party after supporting the Congress Party.
Kumar also alleges a later assault by Badal Party members (struck by car, kicked, punched, threatened with death).
The Immigration Judge (IJ) credited Kumar’s testimony but found the police detention/beatings and the later assault did not rise to past persecution and that Kumar lacked an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed and added alternative factual findings (e.g., lack of nexus, Badal Party not state actors, government able/willing to control them).
The Second Circuit reviewed both opinions, refused to consider the BIA’s new factfinding on appeal, found the IJ’s analysis of past persecution insufficient (mischaracterized medical-treatment evidence; failed to analyze context/aggregate harm), and remanded for further factfinding.
Result: petition for review granted, BIA decision vacated, case remanded for the agency to reconsider past-persecution findings; court did not resolve future-persecution claim pending those findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kumar suffered past persecution	Kumar: police beatings and political-motivated assaults constitute past persecution	Gov: injuries were minor harassment, not persecution	Remanded — IJ’s analysis insufficient; agency must reassess severity, context, aggregate harm, and reason for arrest
Whether BIA may make new factual findings on appeal	Kumar: BIA cannot engage in de novo factfinding; must defer to IJ credibility/findings	Gov: BIA’s alternative findings supported denial	Held for Kumar — Court declined to consider BIA’s new factual findings; BIA may not make de novo factfinding on appeal
Whether the assault by Badal Party members and police actions were nexus to a protected ground/state action	Kumar: attacks motivated by political affiliation; government complicit or unable/unwilling to control assailants	Gov: assaults not politically motivated; Badal Party not state actors; gov’t could control them	Not decided — Court remanded; declined to resolve nexus/state-actor issues because agency must first reassess past-persecution findings
Whether court should decide future well-founded fear claim	Kumar: past harm supports well-founded fear of future persecution	Gov: no past persecution so no well-founded fear	Not reached — Court left future-persecution issue to agency after it determines past persecution

Baba v. Holder, 569 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2009) (physical abuse by government agents may constitute persecution)
Beskovic v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2006) (minor beatings in arrest/detention can rise to persecution depending on context)
Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2005) (agency must consider harm in the aggregate and provide minimum analysis)
Jian Qiu Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820 (2d Cir. 2011) (beatings during arrest are not per se persecution but require careful analysis)
Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing BIA and IJ opinions)
Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard of review for legal questions and factfinding limits)
Padmore v. Holder, 609 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2010) (de novo review applies to legal questions; substantial-evidence review to factual findings)