Ramzan Chaudhry v. Jefferson Sessions
696 F. App'x 835
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ramzan Ali Chaudhry appealed denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection by the BIA; this court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
- Chaudhry did not contest the BIA’s discretionary denial of asylum or the denial of CAT protection on appeal, resulting in waiver of those challenges.
- The IJ found Chaudhry not credible and afforded his testimony little weight; expert Dr. Gabbay’s testimony was discounted as based on Chaudhry’s exaggerations and speculation.
- Chaudhry presented no documentary evidence showing that anyone in Pakistan knew him or his moderate political opinions.
- He argued withholding of removal based on fear of individualized persecution (e.g., being targeted as a returnee from the U.S.) and claimed a cognizable social group of people who return to Pakistan after prolonged U.S. residence.
- The agency relied on lack of evidence that Pakistani society perceives returnees as a distinct group, lack of particularity of the proposed group, and absence of nexus between feared harm and a protected ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of Chaudhry’s testimony | Testimony establishes individualized fear of persecution | IJ found testimony not credible; testimony unreliable | Court upheld IJ’s adverse credibility finding; testimony given little weight |
| Weight of expert testimony (Dr. Gabbay) | Expert corroborates country conditions and risk to returnees | Expert relied on Chaudhry’s exaggerated facts and speculation | Court affirmed IJ’s decision to give little weight to expert testimony |
| Cognizability of social group: returnees from U.S. | Returnees after prolonged U.S. residence form a distinct social group | No evidence Pakistan perceives returnees as a distinct, particular social group | Court affirmed BIA’s determination that group was not shown to be cognizable/particular |
| Nexus between feared harm and protected ground | Taliban/actors target returnees or those with moderate political opinions | Record lacks evidence that returnee status or political opinion is a central reason for harm | Court held petitioner failed to show nexus; generalized violence insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2010) (failure to raise issue waives appellate review)
- Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2013) (waiver of challenges not preserved on appeal)
- Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard for withholding: individualized fear and pattern-or-practice inquiry)
- Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized violence does not establish nexus to a protected ground)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.