I M G - 230 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 2426

___________ JO H N N A S IR , a/k /a N a sir M e h m o u d Q u re sh i, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 089- 086- 455) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e M i r l ande Tadal

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 9, 2010 B efor e: M C K E E , C hi ef J udge, H A R D I M A N A N D C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges (O p inion fil ed : O ctob er 19 , 2 0 1 0 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM J ohn N as i rpet i t i ons forr evi ew of the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ’ ( “B I A ”) fi nal or deraff

i r m i ng the I m m i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deni al of N as i r ’ s appl i cat i on for2

asy lum , w ith h o lding o f re m o v al, an d reli ef u n d er the C o n v en ti o n A g ains t T o rtu re ( “ CA T ” ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I. N as i r , a 35- y ear - ol d nat i ve and c i t i zen of I ndi a, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n J une 2008 and w as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs fornotpos s es s i ng a val i d tr avel documentat a d m iss io n . N a sir c o n c e d e d re m o v a b ili tya n d a p p lied f o r a sy lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f re m o v a l, a n d re lief

u n d e r th e C A T . In a h e a rin g b e f o re th e IJ, N a sir te stif

ied th a t f o llo w in g h is conver s i on fr om I s l am t o C hr i s t i ani ty , he had be en har as s ed and thr eat ened. H e t es t i fi ed th a th i s g o d f

a th e ra n d b u s i n e s s a s s o c i a t e , a m a n w h o h a d a l s o c o n v e r t e d t o C h r i s t i a n i ty, w as m ur der ed i n J une 2006 on ac countof hi s conver s i on. N as i rt es t i fi ed thathe fe ar ed r eturni ng t o I ndi a bec aus e the I ndi an governm entfai l s t o pr ot ectC hr i s t i an conve r t s w ho are att acked byM usl i m s. T he I J det erm i ned thatthe thr eat eni ng i nci dent s exper i ence d byN as i r— an arm ed m an br eaki ng i nt o hi s fami l y ’ s hous e i n 2006 and a s tr angergr abbi ng hi s arm and y el l i ng “murt ad” i n 2007 — w er e i ns uffi ci entt o r i s e t o the l evel of pas tper s ecut i on ort o gr ound an obj ect i vel yw el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on bas ed on r el i gi on. T he I J fur ther f o u n d th a t N a sir’s c laim o f f e a r o f f u tu re p e rse c u tio n w a s u n d e rm in e d b yth e f a c t th a t, aft ertr avel i ng t o t he U ni t ed St at es forthr ee mont hs , N as i rr eturned t o l i ve i n I ndi a fr om M a y2 0 0 7 to Ju n e 2 0 0 8 w ith o u t ex p e rie n c in g a n yse rio u s h a rm . F u rth e rm o re , N a sir t es t i fi ed thatthe r eas on thathe tr avel ed t o the U ni t ed St at es fora s econd t i m e i n J une3

2008 w as i n or dert o j oi n a mi s s i on i n C ol or ado, nott o fl ee a ct i ve har as s m ent . A ft er fi ndi ng ther e w as no evi dence i n t he r ecor d t o s uppor tN as i r ’ s fea rthathe w oul d be ki l l ed f o r c o n v e rt in g , th e IJ d e n ie d N a s ir ’s a p p lic a tio n s f o r r e lie f a n d o rd e re d h im e x c lu d e d . N as i rappea l ed, s ubm i t t i ng addi t i onal backgr ound r eport s w i th hi s appel l at e br i ef t o t he B I A . I n an or derdat ed A pr i l 15, 2009, the B I A deni ed N as i r ’ s appea l , agr eei ng w i th the I J ’ s r eas oni ng. T he B I A addi t i onal l yobs erved thatN as i rcoul d avoi d the vi ol ence by m ovi ng t o part s of I ndi a w her e C hr i s t i ans ar e noti n danger . T r eat i ng the addi t i onal b ac k g rou n d m aterial s as a m o ti o n to rem an d , see 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 (c)(4), th e B IA decl i ned t o r es t artthe pr ocee di ngs , concl udi ng that“the bac kgr ound evi dence s ubm i t t ed does nots how thatthe I ndi an governm entori ndi vi dual s thatthe governm enti s unabl e or unw i l l i ng t o contr ol curr ent l yper s ecut e I ndi an ci t i zens w ho convertt o C hr i s t i ani tyeven i n th e Ka s h mi rr e g i o n . ” ( S e e BI A De c . a t2 . ) Na s i rf i l e d a t i me l yp e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a ). W her e “the B I A both adopt s the fi ndi ngs of the I J and di s cus s es s om e of the bas es fort he I J ’ s deci s i on, w e have author i tyt o r evi ew the dec i s i ons of both the I J and the B I A . ” C hen v. A s hcr oft , 376 F. 3d 215, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . O urr evi ew i s fors ubs t ant i al evi dence . See B ut tv. G onzal es , 429 F. 3d 430, 433 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . U nderthi s defe r ent i al sta n d a rd o f

re v iew , w e m u st u p h o ld th e a g e n c y ’s f in d in g s “ u n les s th e e v id e n c e n o t o n ly s uppor t s a contr aryconcl us i on, butcompel s i t . ” A bdi l l e v. A s hcr oft , 242 F. 3d 477, 483-I n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m , N as i rci t es the 2009 A nnual R eportpr epar ed bythe 1 U n i t e d S t a t e s C o m m i s s i o n o n I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e l i g i o u s F r e e d o m . ( S e e P e t . B r . a t1 3 . ) We n o te th a t th is e v id e n c e w a s n o t su b m itt e d to th e IJ o r to th e B IA , as it i s n o t co n tain e d in the A dm i ni s tr at i ve R ecor d; thus the I J and the B I A coul d nothave e rr ed forfai l i ng t o t ake i ti nt o cons i der at i on. See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( b) ( 4) ( A ) ( l i m i t i ng r evi ew t o the admi ni s tr at i ve rec o rd). 4 84 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . W e r evi ew the deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen orr emand forabus e of d iscreti o n . S ee L iu v . A tt ’yG en . , 5 5 5 F . 3 d 1 4 5 , 1 4 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). Subst ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the B I A ’ s and I J ’ s deci s i ons . N as i rar gues thatt he I J and B I A fai l ed t o cons i derhi s t es t i m ony“w i thi n the l ar gercont extof per s ecut i on” agai ns tC hr i s t i ans i n I ndi a bas ed on the D epart m entof St at e’ s C ountryC ondi t i ons Re p o r t . ( S e e P e t . Br . a t1 1 . ) Th e r e c o r d d o e s n o ts u p p o r tth i s a r g u me n t . S e e , e . g . , A. R.

1 2 9 0 (th e IJ e x p re ss lyc o n sid e rin g th e c o u n tryc o n d iti o n s). A s f o r th e e v id e n c e th a t N a sir su b m itted to the B IA alon g w ith h is ap p ea l, see A . R . 2 0 , 1 4 0 -23 3 , w e a g ree w ith the B IA thatthe s ubm i t t ed evi dence “does nots how thatthe I ndi an governm entori ndi vi dual s t hat the governm enti s unabl e orunw i l l i ng t o contr ol curr ent l yper s ecut e I ndi an ci t i zens w ho c o n v e r tt o C h r i s t i a n i ty e v e n i n th e K a s h m i rr e g i o n . ” ( S e e B I A D e c . a t2 . ) A c c o r d i n g l y, w e fi nd thatthe B I A di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng a r emand t o the I J t o cons i der the new l ys ubm i t t ed evi dence . Subst ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the conc l us i on thatthe harm s uffe r ed byN as i rdoes n o t co n stitu te p a st p e rse c u tio n . T h re a ts c o n stitu te p a st p e rse c u tio n “ in o n lya sm a ll cat egoryof ca s es , and onl yw hen the thr eat s ar e s o m enac i ng as t o caus e s i gni fi cantactualB eca us e N as i rhas notes t abl i s hed hi s el i gi bi l i tyforas y l um , he ca nnots at i s fyt he 2 hi gherbur den of pr oof forw i thhol di ng orr emoval . See Shehu v. A tt ’ yG en. , 482 F. 3d 6 5 2 , 6 5 7 -5 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). N o r is N a sir e lig ib le f o r re lief u n d e r C A T , as h e f

a iled to sh o w that h e w o u ld li k elyb e torture d if rem o v ed to C h ina. S ee 8 C . F . R . § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (c)(2). 5 ‘ s uffe r i ng orharm . . ’ ” Li v. A t t ’ yG en. of the U . S. , 400 F. 3d 157, 164 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng L i m v. I N S, 224 F. 3d 929, 936 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ) . T he thr eat s i n thi s cas e — sh o w in g u p a t N a sir’s h o u se w h ile h e w a s n o t p re se n t — w e re n e v e r a c ted u p o n a n d d id n o t cau se N asir an yp h y sical i n jury . T h e inc iden t i n w h ich a m an g rab b ed N asir’s arm and y el l ed “mur t ad” a thi m al s o does notr i s e t o the l evel of per s ecut i on. A d d iti o n a lly , su b sta n tial e v id e n c e su p p o rts th e B IA ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t N a sir d id notes t abl i s h t hathe had a w el l - founded f earof futur e per s ecut i on i f he r eturned t o I ndi a. W hi l e he t es t i fi ed thatany one w ho l eave s I s l am and convert s t o C hr i s t i ani tyi s puni s hed bydeath, he pr ovi ded no evi dence t o s uppor tthatcont ent i on. A s the I J emphasi zed, t he 2006 C ountr yR eports t at es that2. 3 per centof I ndi a’ s popul at i on i s C hr i s t i an and thatt he governm entgener al l yr es pect s the cons t i tut i on’ s pr ovi s i on forfr eedom of r el i gi on. ( See A .R . 2 9 0 , 3 8 4 -8 5 .) 2 F o rth e a b o v e r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.