459 F. App'x 446
5th Cir.2012Background
- Maredia, a Muslim Indian native and citizen, petitions for review of the BIA's dismissal of his asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims.
- Claims for asylum, CAT relief, and remand for status adjustment are abandoned for lack of briefing.
- Derivative withholding claims on behalf of his wife and children were properly dismissed under controlling law.
- Maredia's request to remand for individualized family consideration was not administratively exhausted and is waived due to inadequate briefing.
- The sole issue before the court is Maredia's claim for withholding of removal based on a 'clear probability' of persecution due to religion.
- The court affirms the BIA's denial, finding no clear, objective probability of persecution against Maredia alone.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maredia is entitled to withholding of removal. | Maredia asserts a clear probability of religious persecution in India. | BIA found no clear probability of persecution against Maredia personally. | No, the evidence does not show a clear probability of persecution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arif v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 677 (5th Cir. 2007) (derivative withholding claims not allowed; supports dismissal)
- Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2001) (administrative exhaustion requirements and waiver principles)
- Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830 (5th Cir. 2003) (briefing adequacy governs waiver)
- Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131 (5th Cir. 2006) (clear probability standard for withholding of removal)
- Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590 (5th Cir. 2006) (need for clear, objective probability; evidence review standard)
- Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2007) (past persecution not established; lack of presumption for future persecution)
- Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2004) (generalized fear insufficient without particularized likelihood)