Masthanaiah Meejuru v. Loretta Lynch
670 F. App'x 246
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Mastanaiah Meejuru, an Indian national, appealed the IJ’s order finding him removable and denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; BIA dismissed his appeal and petition for review followed.
- Meejuru argued his asylum application was untimely but excused by "exceptional circumstances" stemming from depression, mental incapacitation, and psychological/physical control by others.
- He also asserted incompetency claiming mental disabilities prevented him from adequately representing himself before the IJ.
- For withholding of removal, Meejuru claimed past persecution and a likelihood of future persecution based on caste, alleged operating above his status, and (raised later) adoption of American behaviors and non-Hindu practices.
- The BIA/IJ found no evidence of psychological impairment, concluded harassment stemmed from personal disputes and business discrimination not rising to persecution, and found country-condition evidence did not show it was more likely than not he would face future persecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of asylum: whether exceptional circumstances excuse late filing | Meejuru: Depression/mental incapacitation and control by others excuse delay | Government: IJ/BIA factual findings on timeliness are binding; court lacks jurisdiction to reweigh facts | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to review factual timeliness determination; asylum challenge dismissed |
| Due process — competency inquiry by IJ | Meejuru: Mental disabilities rendered him incompetent; IJ should have inquired, violating due process | Government/BIA: Record lacks medical evidence of psychological impairment; assertions are conclusional | Abandoned on appeal; on merits, insufficient evidence to show incompetency or due process violation |
| Withholding — past persecution | Meejuru: Suffered past persecution based on caste and conduct (operating above status) | Government: Incidents arose from personal disputes or non-severe discrimination, not persecution | Substantial evidence supports denial; no past persecution established; claim denied |
| Withholding — future persecution / exhaustion of new theories | Meejuru: Likely future persecution based on caste, Americanized behavior, and non-Hindu practices (latter raised for first time on appeal) | Government: New theories not exhausted before BIA; country conditions do not show individualized risk more likely than not | New arguments unexhausted and not considered; substantial evidence supports denial of future-persecution claim; withholding denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788 (5th Cir. 2004) (failure to brief an issue constitutes abandonment)
- Nakimbugwe v. Gonzalez, 475 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2007) (court lacks jurisdiction to review factual timeliness determinations for asylum)
- Zhu v. Gonzalez, 493 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2007) (same limitation on jurisdiction over factual timeliness findings)
- United States v. Pineda, 988 F.2d 22 (5th Cir. 1993) (conclusional assertions insufficient to establish incompetency)
- Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard for persecution and severity of harm; review of substantial-evidence determinations)
- Adebisi v. INS, 952 F.2d 910 (5th Cir. 1992) (harassment from personal disputes does not establish persecution)
- Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590 (5th Cir. 2006) (business discrimination not necessarily persecution absent sufficient severity)
- Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2009) (exhaustion requirement for claims before the BIA)
- Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (arguments raised first in reply briefs are forfeited)