Nazirmohammad I. Vah v. Eric H. Hol
707 F.3d 904
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Vahora, a Muslim from India, alleges persecution by private Hindu leaders Patel and Mistry after the 2002 Gujarat train fire.
- He asserts the government of India could not or would not protect him from these individuals.
- Vahora did not report incidents to authorities during the years he remained in India, though a police officer reportedly advised him to misstate injuries.
- Immigration Judge and BIA found no past persecution or well-founded fear because persecution was by private actors and India could protect him, supported by a 2008 State Department Country Report.
- Vahora sought asylum, withholding of removal, and a motion to reopen; the court reviews the BIA decision for substantial evidence.
- Court ultimately denies petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether persecution by private actors qualifies as asylum if government cannot or will not protect | Vahora: government unable/unwilling to protect him from Patel and Mistry | BIA: persecution by private actors requires government helplessness or condonation | Denied; substantial evidence supports BIA on inability/unwillingness to protect. |
| Is there a well-founded fear of future persecution given relocation possibilities within India | Vahora fears continued harm if remaining in India | Relocation within country could be reasonable; not persecuted by government | Denied; not established well-founded fear under standard. |
| Impact of police officer's hospital advice on credibility and protection finding | Officer's advice shows government failure to protect | Single non-supervisory incident insufficient to show inability/unwillingness | Denied; one hospital visit not enough to prove government failure. |
| Whether motion to reopen was properly denied given new sources | New sources could alter outcome | New materials not new or reliable; no abuse of discretion | Denied; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zhou Ji Ni v. Holder, 635 F.3d 1014 (7th Cir. 2011) (substantial evidence standard for upholding BIA decisions)
- Raghunathan v. Holder, 604 F.3d 371 (7th Cir. 2010) (substantial evidence review; asylum burden)
- Sharif v. INS, 87 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 1996) (persecution must threaten death or substantial harm)
- Jonaitiene v. Holder, 660 F.3d 267 (7th Cir. 2011) (INA persecution requires government inability or unwillingness to protect)
- Escobar v. Holder, 657 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2011) (private crime not persecution absent lack of government protection)
- Hor v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 2005) (evidence of government protection issues supports inability to protect)
- Guchshenkov v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 554 (7th Cir. 2004) (police indifference can indicate inability to protect)
- Ingmantoro v. Mukasey, 550 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2008) (no reports to police or futile reports do not compel protection finding)
- Moosa v. Holder, 644 F.3d 380 (7th Cir. 2011) (motion to reopen must show new, material evidence)
- Pramatarov v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 764 (7th Cir. 2006) (government response to ethnic persecution considerations)