### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60237 Su m m ar y Cal endar

A B B A S S H A IK H , P et i t i on er v. ERI C H

. H OLD ER, J R. , U. S. ATTORN EY GE N ERA L R esp on d en t

Pet i t i o n Fo rRev i e w o f a n Ord e ro f

t he B oard of

I m m i grati on A pp eal s A 96 044 431

B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. E M ILIO M

. G A R Z A , C i rcui tJu dg e: Pet i t i o ne rAbba s Sha i kh (“ Shaikh” ) pe t i t i o ns t hi s c o ur tf o rr e vi e w o f

t he B oard of

I m m i grati on A pp eal s’(“ B IA” ) deci si on af f i rm i n g t h e I m m i grati on Jud ge ’ s (“ I J” ) de c i s i o n de nyi ng hi s pe t i t i o n f o rw i t hho l di ng o f r e m o va lpur s uant t o 8U

. S. C

. § 1231(b) ( 3) (A). Becaus e w e f i nd t he B IA ’ s dec i si on s upport ed by
s ubs t ant i ale vi de nc e , w e D EN Y t he pe t i t i o n. S h a i k h i s a citi ze n of In d i aan dan Ism a i l iM u sli m . H e w a s ad m i tted to t h e U n t i ed S t ates i n N ovem ber 200 0 w i t h non - i m m i gran tvi si t or authori zati on f o rat e m po r ar y pe r i o d. H e s t ayed b e yo nd the a ut ho r i z e d p e r i o d. I n 2 00 5, he
w as i ssueda noti ce t o app ear. H e di d so an d athi s heari n g i n 200 7, he conced ed United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

19, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 60237

2 r e m o vabil i t y buts o ugh tw i t hho l di ng o f r e m o va lo n t he g r o unds o f r e l i gi o us pe r s e c ut i o n. Sha i kh c l ai m s t hatShiv Se na, aH i ndu nat i o nali s to r ga ni z at i o n, pe r s e c ut e d hi m i n t he pa s t ba s e d o n hi s s t at us as an I s m ail i M us l i m andt hathe fears p ersec u t i on if

returnedto Ind i a. S h ai kh t est i f i ed that he l ivedan d w orked i n al ar ge l y H i ndu ar e a, t hatt he Shiv Se na de m and e d t hathe payt he m t o f und H i ndu fes t ivals a n d r eli gi ous ac t ivi t i es , t hatw hen he r ef use d t o payhe w as beat en, and t hathi s l i fe w as t hre at ened. Shai kh al so c l ai m s t hat Sh iv Sena has
m ade i nqui r i es as t o hi s w her eabo ut s si nce he l ef tI ndi a. T h e IJ de n i edh i s req u est for w i th h oldin g of rem ov a l

. S h a i k h ap p ea l ed to th e B IA , w h i ch f

ou n dtha t th e IJ h a dcorre ctly d eterm i n ed tha t Sh a i k h fa i l ed to sho w t hatany har m he e xper i enc ed “w as on ac c ountof hi s r eli gi on. ” N ot i ng t hat t he REAL I D Ac tg o v e r ne dSh a i kh ’ s p e t i t i o n, t he BIA wen to n t o f i ndt hat S h ai kh di d n otest abli sh that hi s r el i gi on w as “ on e centr alreason” f or t h e ha rm an d that he fai l ed to sho w t h at he w i llm ore li kely th an not face f u t u re pe r s e c ut i o n o n a c c o unto f hi s r e l i gi o n. W e r e vi e w t he BI A’ s de c i s i o n a nd o nl y cons i de rt he I J’ s de c i s i o n t o t he
e x te n t t h a t itin flu e n c e dth e B IA

. S e eMi k h a e lv . I NS , 1 1 5 F .3 d 29 9 , 30 2 ( 5 th C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ). Q u e s tio n s o f la w a r e r e v ie w e d d e n o v o . S eeL o p ez -G o m ezv. A sh cr oft , 2 6 3 F .3 d4 4 2 , 4 4 4 (5 t h C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). W e a ffo r d c o n s id e r a b le “ d e fe r e n c e to th e B IA ’s i nt e r pr e t at i o n o f

i m m i gr at i o n s t at ut e s unl e s s t he r e c o rd reve al s c o m pe l l i ng ev i d en ce th a t th e B IA ’ s i n terp reta ti on i s i n corre ct. ” Mi kh ael , 115 F

. 3d at302. F a c tu a l fin d in g s a r e r e v ie w e dfo rs u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , i d. , w h ic h “r e q u ir e s o n ly th a t t h e B IA ’ s d e c is io n s b e s u p p o r te db yre c o r d e v i d e n c e a n db e s u b s ta n tia lly
rea son a b l e,” O m aga h v. A sh cr oft , 2 8 8 F .3d 2 5 4 , 2 5 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). U n der 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1231 (b) ( 3) (A) , w i t h h ol di n go f r em oval i s a m an da t ory f orm of rel i ef

if a n a l i en ’ s li fe or f

reedom w ou l d be threatenedi n t h e coun t ry of
r e m o va lb e c aus e o f

t he a l i e n’ s r ac e , r e l i gi o n, na t i o nali t y, m e m be r s hi p i n a p a rti cu l a r s ocial g rou p , o r p oliti ca lo p i n i on . B efore th e p a ssa ge of th e R E A L IDN o. 09- 60237

3 A c t, a n a lie n h a do n lyt o d e m o n s tr a te t h a t “o n e o f th e p e r s e c u to r ’ s m o tiv e s [fe ll]
w i th i n a sta tu torily p rotecte dgro u n d

. ” Gi r mav . I NS , 28 3 F .3 d66 4 , 66 7 ( 5 th C i r. 200 2)

. R el i ef

w as ava i l able on a show i n g t h at pers ecuti on w as “ m ot ivated
a t l ea st i n pa rt bya p rotecte dgro u n d

. ” Se ei d. B utunder t he R E A L ID A c t , an al i en m ust“e st abl i sh thatr ac e, r eli gi on, nat i onal i t y, m em ber shi p i n a par t i c ul ar social grou p , or p oliti ca lop in io n w a s or w i l lbe at l ea st on e c entral reason f or pers e c ut i ng th e a p p lic a n t.” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 5 8 (b )(1 )(A) (e m p h a s is a d d e d); seealso Ma tt er of J-B -N- & S -M-, 2 4 I . & N . D e c . 2 0 8 , 2 1 2 (B IA2 0 0 7 ). T h e B IA ’s i nt e r p r e t a t i o n i s t h a t a l t h o u g h a s t a t u t o r i l y p r o t e c t e d g r o u n d n e e d n o t be t he
o n ly reason f

or harm , i tcann otbe “i n ci den t al , t an gen t i al , sup erf i ci al , or
su b ord i n a te to an oth er re a son f or h a rm . ” I

d. at214. A l t hough w e have nothad occasi on t o consi der t h i s i n t erpret ati on , a n u m ber of other c i rcui t s hav e accept ed it. See, e . g. , Q u i n t eros-Men d o za v. Hol d er , 5 5 6 F .3d 1 5 9 , 1 6 4 (4t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); S i ngh v. Mu ka sey , 5 4 3 F .3 d1 , 5 (1 s t C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); Paru ss im o v av. Mu ka sey , 533 F .3 d 1 1 2 8 , 1 1 3 4 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), am e nded ands upers e ded o n deni alof r e h’ g by 5 5 5 F .3 d7 3 4 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). W e jo in o u rs is te rcir c u its in a c c e p tin gth is i nt e r pr e t at i o n. H ere, t h e I J f

ou n d that Sh ai kh ha d n otsh ow n t h at any p ast persecuti on he s uf fer ed w as on the bas i s of r eli gi on o rany o t herpr ot ec t ed g r ound. Al t hough S h ai kh t est i f

i ed that he i s M u sl i m an d S h iv S en a w as dem an di n g m on ey f or H i n du f est ivals an d then t h reat en i n g h i m w h en h e d i d n otpay , he als o t est i f i ed t h a tS h ivS e n ad e ma n d e dmo n e yf r o m a ll bus i ne s s pe o pl e i n hi s ne i ghb o r ho o d, M us l i m a nd H i ndu ali ke

. Fur t he r m o r e , he t e s t if i e d t hatShiv Se na w as v i o l e nt t ow ard an yon e w h o ref u sed t o p ay regardl ess of t h ei r r el i gi ou s af

f i l i ati on . B ased
on t h i s t est i m on y, t h e I J f ou n d that a n y pa sti n ci den t s w ere busi n ess extor t i on rat h er th an reli gi ou s- based persecution

. T h e B IAagreed an d f ou n d that on t h e s e fa c t s , r e l i g i o n w a s n o t“ o n e c e n t r a lr e a s o n ” f o ra n yp a s th a r m.N o. 09- 60237

4 B as ed o n a rev i ew of

the r ec or d, t he B IA ’ s det er m i nat i on t hatShai kh w as notper se c ut ed o n a ccou n t o f a pr ot ec t ed g r ound i s suppor t ed bys ubst ant i al
e v i d e n c e . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e p e t i t i o n i s DE NI ED

.