Nisar Mulla v. Eric Holder, Jr., 462 F. App'x 592

Mulla, a Pakistani national, entered the U.S. as an immigrant in 1975 and later was convicted in 1981 of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, rendering him deportable.
He self-deported in 1984 during a trip to the Virgin Islands but reentered as a returning lawful resident and faced deportation proceedings resumed in 1989.
In 1990, he conceded deportability but sought asylum; later, he changed course to seek voluntary departure which the INS opposed, leading to deportation orders.
In 1994 the BIA granted a remand to allow an asylum filing and remanded for further proceedings, conditioning the motion to asylum on a limited remand and denying other relief.
On remand, the IJ denied asylum and held no jurisdiction to consider suspension of deportation; the BIA sustained the IJ on credibility but dismissed other grounds in 2009.
Mulla challenged the BIA’s decisions by petition for review; the court denied relief, addressing due process, remand scope, and reconsideration/reopening issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Asylum eligibility and government protection	Mulla argues his status constitutes a protected social group and/or that Pakistan cannot protect him.	BIA found no sufficient evidence government inability to protect and questioned social-group status.	No review on government-control finding; substantial evidence supports BIA.
Due process prejudice from IJ conduct	Hostile questioning violated due process and prejudiced the outcome.	Any conduct did not prejudice the outcome; BIA remedied credibility issues.	No prejudice; no due process violation affecting the result.
Scope of remand and jurisdiction to suspend deportation	Remand allowed broader review including suspension of deportation.	Remand limited to asylum; no jurisdiction to consider suspension.	Remand limited to asylum; no error in limiting review.
Motions to reconsider and reopen	BIA abused its discretion in denying reconsideration/reopening.	Arguments mirror previously denied issues; prima facie asylum not shown.	No abuse of discretion; denials affirmed.

Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2006) (limits review of discretionary/factual asylum questions; preserves constitutional issues)
Kante v. Holder, 634 F.3d 321 (6th Cir. 2011) (government protection standard for persecution)
Bonilla-Morales v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1132 (6th Cir. 2010) (courts may assess whether government can or will protect does not require social-group determination)
Silva v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) (rejects social-group standing without government protection showing)
Stserba v. Holder, 646 F.3d 964 (6th Cir. 2011) (BIA must consider issues raised and provide enough reasoning for review)
Akhtar v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2005) (adequate explanation by IJ/BIA enables meaningful review)