Ubaidullah Radiowala v. Attorney General United States, 930 F.3d 577

Background

Radiowala entered the U.S. on a visitor visa in 1998 with his family and remained for ~20 years, building a successful business and serving as the sole financial provider for dependents (including U.S.-citizen children and DACA recipients).
In 2017 he was arrested during a traffic stop and conceded removability for being present without admission; he applied for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
In India, before emigration, he worked as a rickshaw driver and was a paid confidential informant for a police officer who investigated violent gangs; he did not testify publicly in court.
The IJ found his testimony credible but denied all relief; the BIA affirmed. Radiowala petitioned for review in the Third Circuit and was removed before this Court resolved the stay.
The BIA/IJ concluded (1) he met many cancellation prerequisites but failed to show ‘‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’’ to qualifying relatives; (2) his proposed social groups (confidential informants; those who speak truth at risk) were not legally cognizable; and (3) CAT relief was speculative because there was no objective evidence he would likely be tortured if returned.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Radiowala)	Defendant's Argument (Gov't)	Held
Reviewability of cancellation-of-removal hardship determination	Board abused discretion or misapplied standard; hardship to U.S. relatives is exceptional given his sole-provider role	Hardship decision is discretionary under 8 U.S.C. §1229b and not reviewable absent a legal-standard challenge	Dismissed as to cancellation: Court lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary hardship determination (no claim that incorrect legal standard was applied)
Asylum timeliness and alternative relief	Seeks asylum/withholding based on past informant status and fear of gang retribution	Asylum is time-barred (application not within one year); withholding tied to same social-group theory	Asylum claim is time-barred; withholding fails on social-group grounds and insufficient evidence of persecution
Cognizability of proposed social groups (confidential informants; truth-tellers)	Group of former paid confidential informants (and a broader group of persons targeted for speaking truth) are immutable and particular	The confidential-informant group lacks social distinction and the ‘‘truth-tellers’’ group is defined by persecutory conduct and thus not cognizable	Court affirms BIA: confidential paid informants are not a legally cognizable social group (lack social visibility); ‘‘targeted for speaking truth’’ is impermissibly defined by persecution and not cognizable
CAT relief (likelihood of torture)	Faces risk from gang associates and collusive police in India; officer who used him was killed; past threats support likelihood of torture	No objective evidence he would be sought or tortured after ~20 years abroad; pursuit is speculative	Denied: substantial evidence supports BIA/IJ prediction that torture is unlikely; fear is too speculative to meet CAT standard

Key Cases Cited

Mendoza-Ordonez v. Attorney General, 869 F.3d 164 (3d Cir. 2017) (jurisdiction and review principles for BIA decisions)
Orabi v. Attorney General, 738 F.3d 535 (3d Cir. 2014) (review limited to BIA’s stated reasons; may consider IJ where adopted)
Garcia v. Attorney General, 665 F.3d 496 (3d Cir. 2011) (recognizing cognizable social group of witnesses who publicly testified against violent gangs)
S.E.R.L. v. Attorney General, 894 F.3d 535 (3d Cir. 2018) (framework for particularity and social distinction requirements for social-group analysis)
Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233 (3d Cir. 1993) (social-group requirement for asylum/withholding claims)
Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 2002) (standard for CAT review and burden of proof)
Patel v. Attorney General, 619 F.3d 230 (3d Cir. 2010) (lack of reviewability for discretionary cancellation hardship determinations)