Rabinder Balami v. Attorney General United States
17-1528
| 3rd Cir. | Dec 4, 2017Background
- Petitioner Rabinder Balami, a Nepalese national, entered the U.S. without documentation in January 2016 and faced removal proceedings. He sought asylum, withholding of removal (INA), and CAT protection claiming persecution by Maoist Party members for alleged political affiliation with the Nepali Congress Party.
- Alleged incidents: 2012 and 2013 recruitment attempts; a 2013 attack in which he was struck (stitches to knee alleged); a 2015 armed chase by Maoists; threats to him and a phone threat to his parents while he traveled to the U.S.
- The IJ found Balami not credible but also analyzed the record assuming credibility, concluding he failed to meet burdens for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; the BIA affirmed on the alternative ground that even if credible, he failed to meet proof requirements.
- Key factual deficiencies identified: (1) incidents did not amount to severe/extreme persecution; (2) no demonstrated nexus between harm and a protected ground (no established actual or imputed political opinion); (3) fear of future persecution not objectively reasonable given lack of harm to immediate family and lack of evidence of ongoing targeting; (4) insufficient proof that torture was more likely than not or that government would acquiesce.
- The Third Circuit reviewed the BIA decision under substantial-evidence review for factual findings and de novo for legal conclusions and denied the petition for review in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner suffered past persecution | Balami: physical attack, armed chase, and threats constitute past persecution | Government: incidents were not extreme/severe enough to constitute persecution | Held: Not persecution; substantial evidence supports IJ/BIA |
| Nexus to protected ground (political opinion) | Balami: persecutors targeted him for political affiliation with Nepali Congress; IJ should have developed record (pro se) to show imputed opinion | Government: record lacks evidence petitioner held or was imputed a political opinion; IJ adequately questioned him | Held: No nexus; IJ adequately developed record |
| Well-founded fear of future persecution | Balami: repeated targeting and threats make fear objectively reasonable | Government: lack of harm to family and no evidence of ongoing persecution undermines objective reasonableness | Held: Fear not objectively reasonable; asylum denied on future-fear ground |
| CAT relief (likelihood of torture) | Balami: Maoists' violence and alleged tolerance by authorities make torture likely | Government: record does not compel finding that torture is more likely than not or that officials would acquiesce | Held: Petition denied; CAT relief not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- He Chun Chen v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2004) (BIA adopts IJ findings; scope of review)
- Kibinda v. Attorney General, 477 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2007) (severity threshold for past persecution)
- Shardar v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 318 (3d Cir. 2004) (substantial-evidence standard of review)
- Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2003) (standard for withholding of removal relative to asylum)
- Chavarria v. Gonzalez, 446 F.3d 508 (3d Cir. 2006) (imputed political opinion analysis)
- Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 2002) (CAT/torture standard)
- Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2005) (elements defining torture)