Walled Agha v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., 743 F.3d 609

Agha, a Palestinian-origin individual born in Lebanon in 1973, entered the U.S. on a visitor visa in 1998 and overstayed, triggering removal proceedings in 2003.
He seeks asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, asserting statelessness and potential persecution based on Palestinian status and country conditions.
An Immigration Judge denied relief in 2007, finding no past persecution or well-founded fear; India was designated as the removal country due to a claimed Indian passport; statelessness was acknowledged as a possibility.
The BIA remanded in 2009 to correct the designation of the country of removal under Jama v. ICE; subsequent hearings led Judge Bain to designate multiple countries (Dubai, Palestinian Territory, Lebanon, UAE, India, Ecuador, and others).
The BIA ultimately dismissed Agha’s asylum, withholding, and CAT claims; Agha appeals arguing nationality/statelessness must be determined first and that Dr. LeVine’s testimony supports fear of persecution.
The district court judges panel reviews, applying substantial evidence and exhaustion principles to assess the arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether nationality/statelessness must be determined prior to asylum analysis	Agha argues BIA must decide nationality or statelessness before asylum eligibility.	BIA need not determine nationality first; exhaustion and procedural rules apply to issues raised on appeal.	Waived; court lacks jurisdiction due to exhaustion
Whether Agha showed a well-founded fear of persecution for asylum	Agha contends Palestinian status and statelessness support a well-founded fear; Dr. LeVine testimony bolsters risk in Lebanon/UAE.	BIA correctly found the fear was not well-founded and testimony was insufficiently particularized.	Supported by substantial evidence; no reversible error
Whether statelessness defeats eligibility for asylum	Statelessness should permit asylum as a separate ground due to lack of protection by any government.	Stateless persons must prove the same well-founded fear as those with nationality; statelessness alone is not enough.	Denied; statelessness does not create independent asylum rights; substantial evidence supports denial
Whether the BIA violated due process	BIA’s handling of nationality/statelessness and LeVine testimony violated due process.	No due process violation; issues properly exhausted and subsumed within substantial-evidence review.	No due process violation found

Regalado-Garcia v. I.N.S., 305 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2002) (agency may grant asylum to refugees under 8 U.S.C. § 1158)
Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2008) (well-founded fear standard and statelessness considerations)
Rife v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2004) (clear probability standard for withholding of removal; substantial evidence review)
Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335 (Sup. Ct. 2005) (steps for determining the country of removal under § 1231(b)(2))
Vasquez-Velezmoro v. I.N.S., 281 F.3d 693 (8th Cir. 2002) (jurisdiction to review final removal orders and exhaustion requirements)
Pavlovich v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 613 (8th Cir. 2007) (well-founded fear standard and asylum framework)
El-Sheikh v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 643 (8th Cir. 2004) (subjective and objective components of well-founded fear)
Amin v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 648 (8th Cir. 2004) (statelessness does not by itself prove persecution)