Sharma v. Holder, 633 F.3d 865

Sharma, a Hindu from India, overstayed in the U.S. after entering in 2001 and sought asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; the IJ denied, and the BIA affirmed and denied a motion to reopen.
Police in India beat Sharma and threatened him and his father while investigating his father's research for a Sikh movement book; authorities aimed to stop publication rather than punish Sharma for his own beliefs.
The Board found no persecution on account of Sharma's political opinion, concluding Sharma was used to pressure his father to cease research rather than being targeted for his own beliefs.
Sharma married a U.S. citizen about six weeks after the Board’s decision and sought to reopen on the basis of a bona fide marriage; the Board presumed post-removal marriages are for immigration admission and required clear and convincing evidence of a bona fide marriage.
Sharma submitted extensive pre- and post-marriage documents and affidavits, but the Board found insufficient evidence of pre-marital courtship/arising from genuine marriage motivations.
Sharma filed multiple motions to reopen and reconsider; the court later held it lacked jurisdiction to review the second and third motions and rejected due process challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sharma was persecuted on account of a political opinion	Sharma asserts imputed political opinion based on his father's beliefs.	Board held police targeted Sharma to stop father's work, not due to Sharma's own political opinion.	No persecution on account of political opinion; asylum/withholding denied
Whether Sharma is entitled to relief under CAT	Past threats indicate future torture is likely if returned.	Mother police actions ceased after book abandoned; not likely to torture Sharma upon return.	CAT relief denied
Whether the Board properly denied reopening based on a post-removal bona fide marriage	Evidence shows joint finances and affiants indicating bona fide marriage.	Evidence insufficient to show pre-marital courtship and motivation for marriage; presumption controls.	Board did not abuse its discretion; motion to reopen denied
Whether Sharma's second and third motions to reopen are reviewable	Seeks review of sua sponte and repeated reopenings.	Ninth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review these motions.	Lack of jurisdiction to review second and third motions
Whether Sharma's due process rights were violated	Time/number bar denied him a fair hearing.	Petition fails because no denial of fair hearing occurred.	Due process claim rejected

Sangha v. I.N.S., 103 F.3d 1482 (9th Cir. 1997) (well-founded fear framework for political persecution)
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) (imputed political opinion where persecutors knew petitioner and father)
Navas v. I.N.S., 217 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2000) (imputed motivation and nexus when persecutors target family members)
Malhi v. I.N.S., 336 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2003) (proof required for bona fide marriage—clear and convincing evidence)
Ahmed v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 2008) (pre-dating documents insufficient to prove bona fide marriage)
Damon v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2004) (evidence of courtship and shared life supports bona fide marriage)
Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I. & N. Dec. 253 (BIA 2002) (cohabitation evidence supports reopening)
Espinoza-Martinez v. INS, 754 F.2d 1536 (9th Cir. 1985) (passport acquisition context relevant to likelihood of individual persecution)