## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 11

- 3189 N AZ I RMOHAMMA D I. V AH O RA, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R
. , A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, Res pond e nt
.

Peti tionfor Revi ewof anOr de rof the B o ard of Immigration App eals

. No . A088-558- 982

A RG UE D M AY 31, 2012

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 25, 2013

B efore M A NI ON, K ANN E , an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . N azirm oha m m ad I

. Vah ora is a cit ize n of Ind ia. H e is als o M u slim . In 20 02 , a tra in ca ug htfi r e i n Guj ar at, I nd i a, wher e he l i ve d. M an y H i nd u pil gr i m s an d act i vi sts were ki l l ed, and vi ol ence between H i nd us and M usl i m s fol l owed

. Vahor a tes ti fi ed th at he a nd s ev er alM us l i m fr i en ds wer e sh o t i n the days a fterthe tr ai n fi re byl oca l H i n d u r el i gi ous o r2 N o. 11

- 3189 pol i ti call eader s, and tha t th ese per sons continued to pur su e hi m thr o ug ho utIndi a i n the f o ury ea r s he re m ain ed th er e. T h e B oa rd of Im m igr at ion A p p ea ls ( “BIA ”) affi rm ed the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge’ s co ncl usi on th at the perse cuti on o fwh i ch Vahor a co m pla i ns was not car ri ed out by perso ns th e go ver nm ent o fI nd i a was unab le orunwi l l i ngt o c o nt r o l

. W hi l e ev i den ce i n the re cor d refl ects thatthe go ver nm ent o fInd i a has ta ken step s to pros ecute perso ns al l ege d to be r esponsibl e for the v i ole nce i n the after m ath o fthe tr ai n burni ng, o ther than a c o nv er sa ti o n wi tha po l i ce o ffi ce r who m he sa id vis ite d h im in t h e h os p ita l an d ad vis ed h im to te ll peopl e t h at h e was sho t r andom l y duri ng a pol i ce fi gh t, Vahora neve r soughthel p f ro m any author i ti es. B ecau se su bsta nt ialeviden ce su p p orts the BIA ’s d eterm i na ti o n tha t Va hor a was no t per se cut ed bype r so ns the g ove rnm ent o fInd i a i s unabl e o r unw illing to c o n t r o l, we d e n y th e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w.

I . B AC KGR OUND The i m m i g r at i o n j udg e acc ept ed Vah o r a’ s te st i m o ny as tr ue f orthe pu rpos es ofi ts d ec isio n , a nd the narr ati ve that f ol l ows re fl ects Vahor a’ s a ccount. On Februar y 2 7, 2002 , at l east fifty-eight p eop le w ere kil led after a tr ain ca u gh t fire n ea r th e G od h ra tra in st at ion in Guj a r a t, I n d i a . Mo s to fth o s e k i l l e d w e r e H i nd u pil gr i m s and a cti vi sts
. The tr age dy l ed to in c rease d te ns i o n b etwee n Hind u and M us l i m g r o ups i n the re gio n, as t h e r e w as su sp icio nth at a m ob of M u slim in d ivid u als h ad at ta c ke d th e t ra in an d w as res p on sib leN o. 11

- 3189 3 f o r the fi r e . A p e r i o d o fvi o l e nc e a nd r i o t s f o l l o we d, re sul ti ng i n the death o fnear l y 1 , 000 peopl e. V ah ora i s M us li m . H e testifi ed at a h e a r in g before ani m m i g r at i o n j ud ge thato n Mar ch3 , 2 00 2, he a nd thre e o fhi s fri ends w er e s i tting ata tea house i n Guj ar at wh e n t wo H i n d u r e l i g i o u s a n d p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s , a c c o mpanie d by f our orfi ve pol i ce o ffi cer s, approa ched Vahora and hi s fri ends. H e s ai d the t w o, w h om he descr ibed i n hi s s tat em ent a s r el i gi ou s and pol i ti cal l eader s, were Sa n d ee p P ate l, the head ofa l oca l uni t o f th e Bha r at i y a J an at a Pa r ty( “BJ P” ) , a po l i ti ca l pa r ty, a nd Ke t a n Mi s t r y, th e l o c a l l e a d e r o fth e V i s h wa H i nd u Pa r i sh ad ( “VHP” ) , a Hi ndu n at i o na l i sto r g an i za ti o n. Vahora t es ti fi ed that the Hindu l eader s threa tened hi m and sai d the co un tr y w as m eant f orH i nd us and not f or M usl i m s. They then bl am ed Vahora and hi s frie n ds, wh o we r e a l s o Mu s l i m, f o r th e b u r n i n go fth e t r ai n. Vah o r a s a i d th a ta ft e r o n e fr i e n d d e n i e d th a ta l l e g a t i o n, P at el t oo k a gu n f r om on e o f th e p olic em en an d fat ally sh o t Vah o r a’ s f r i en d. Va ho r a stat ed th athi s o th erfr i en d tr i ed t o re sist, but that Patelsho t a nd ki l l ed hi m as wel l

. Va ho r a te st i fi ed th at Pa te l the n s ho t hi m i n the c he s ta nd l e ft, think i ngV a ho r a h a d d i e d. Vah o r a r ec o unt ed th atwhi l e he r ec o ve r ed i n the hos p ital, a police offi cer na m ed M r. Bh a t t c a m e to i nt ervi ew hi m . Vahor a s ai d that a fterhe t ol d Bh attwh at had happ ened, Bhatt t ol d him to te l l ev er yone that po l i c e we r e fi g ht i nga tthe t i me a nd tha th e j us tg ot caught by a bul l et. Vahor a s ai d that he co m pli ed w i th Bh att ’ s s ugges ti on a nd st ate d i n a r epor t that he w as st ru c k b y a “p olic e b u llet .”4 N o. 11

- 3189 S o o n a ft e r B h a t t ’ s v i s i t, V a ho r a st a t e d th a tP a t e l c a me to th e h os p ita l, d isp lay ed a gu n, w ar n ed h im to m ain ta in hi s st o r y abou t be i ngi nj ur ed i n a “ po l i ce fi r i ng, ” an d th reaten ed to ki llhim i f he did n o t c o o p erate. Vah ora sa i d he f eare d f o r hi s l i fe an d s o di d no t r epo r t th e i nci dent to the pol i ce. Vahor a sta te d that he di d not l eave hi s ho m e f o r a ppr o xi m at ely fi ve months a fte r he l eft the hos pit albec ause h e w as afra i d. H e s ai d that w hen he di d l eave hi s ho m e, he e ncounter ed Patel a t a gr oc er y m ar ke t an d P at el th re at en ed h im , ask in g h im w hetherhe wa nted to sur vi ve. S car ed f orhi s s afety, V ah or a s aid h e le ft G uj ar at to st ay w ith h i s s ist er in M um baii n J uly20 02. Vah o r a cl ai m ed th ato ne ye ar lat er, i n Aug us t 20 03 , he r ani nt o M i st r y i n Mum ba i

. Vaho r a st at ed th athe g av e M i st r y f al se i nf o r m at i o n when a sk ed hi s cur r en t a d d r e s s , b u t th a t Mi s t r y s t a r t e d v i s i t i n g hi s h o me loo kin g for h im an d ev en ca lled h im on e n i g h t t o t ell h i m th e y we r e g o i n gt o k i l l h i m. V a ho r a s ta t e d th a tt wo days l ate r, the l eader s, al ong w i th ei ght t o ten b oys , knoc ke d h im offhi s bi ke and hithi m , and that he was only save d w he n l ocal sh op keep ers an d ta x i d rivers r u s h e d t o a s s i s th i m. Vahora st ate d that he then m ove d t o D el hi and beg an w orking at a hot el th ere in N ovem ber 2003

. T w o ye ars later, h e said, Patel and som e othe rs cam e to the h otel’s f r o ntde ska nd a sk ed f o r hi m . He sai d tha t when he saw one with a kni fe, he r an o utsid e, an d they as saul ted hi m b utr ana way whenthe hote lo wnerc ame t o the s c e n e . V a h o r a s a i d th a t h e r e t u r n e d t o h i s ho m et o wnN o. 11

- 3189 5 be ca us e he mis se d hi s wi fe an d b r o th er s, s aw the l ea d e r s wh e n h e a n d h i s wi fe we r e o u t f o r a wa l k , a nd w as aga i n sav ed w hen shopke epers cam e t o hi s r escue. Vahora te sti fi ed that he l eft fo r Gu ate m al a a few days later and arri ved there in Febru ary 2006 . A p e rson there he l ped hi m t r av elthr o ugh M ex i co a nd the n int o the U ni ted S tat es , w h ere he sai d he ar ri ved on J une 29, 20 06. H e filed h is a p p lica tio n for a sy lu m on Ju n e 2 8, 2 00 7. A he ar i ngt o o kpl ac e be f o r e ani m m i g r atio n j udg e. The i m m i g r at i o n j udg e g ave Va ho r a “the b en efi t o fthe doubt” a nd co ncl ud ed that he had ti m el y a pp l i ed f or asy l um withi n on e yea r ofhi s e ntryi nto the Unite d St ate s. A l though the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge sta ted that Vahora se t for th a “so m ew hat i m prob ab le, oratl eas t i m pl au sibl e” s to r y tha t two l o ca l Hi ndu l ea der s co ntin u ed to p u rs u e h im e ve n a fte r h e leftG uj ar at, th e im m igr ati on j ud ge dec li ned to m ake an a dvers e cr edibi l i ty fi nd i ng. I nstea d, th e i m m i gr ati on j ud ge rul ed that eve n acce p ti ng Vahor a’ s t est i m ony as tr ue, Vahor a had not prese nted a c ogni zabl e cl aim of past per secuti on o r s h ow n th at he had a w ell -f ou nd ed fear of futu re pe rse cut i o n b ec au se he di d no t demons tr at e th atthe I nd i a n g o v e r nme ntwa s u nab l e o r u nwi l l i ngt o p r o t e ct him

. On ap p eal, the B oar d o f Im m igrati on A p p eals affi r m ed, a l so r ul i ngtha t Vah o r a f ai l ed t o s ho w tha t he suffer ed past perse cuti on o r that he had a w el l

- f ounded fea r o ffutur e per se cut i o n by a group th atthe g o ve r nm ent i s unabl e o r unw i l l i ng to co ntro l

. Vahor a no w p e t i t i o n s th i s c o u r tf o r r e v i e w.6 N o. 11

- 3189 II. A N A L Y S IS T h e B o a r d o f I mm i g r a t i o n A p p e a l s i s s u e d i t s o wn opi ni on r atherthan si m plyad opti ng the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge’s de cision, an d w e w il l up hold t h e B I A ’s dete rm in at ion so lon g a s itis su p p or te d by su b st a n t i a l ev id en c e. Z ho u Ji N i v. Ho lder, 635 F. 3d 1014, 10 18 ( 7th Cir

. 20 11)

. U nd erthis s tandard, we l et the a gency ’ s deter m i nati on s tand “i fit i s ‘ supp or ted byr eas onabl e, substa nti al, and prob ati ve evi dence on the r eco rd co nsi dered as a whole

. ’ ” Raghun at han v. Hol der, 604 F. 3d 371, 37 6 (7th C ir. 2010) (ci tations om itted ). To r ec ei ve asyl um , Va ho r a be ar s th e bur deno fpr o ving that he is a “r efugee” withi n the m eani ng o fthe I m m i gr at io n and N ationality A ct (“I N A ”), 8 U

. S. C

. § 1101(a)(42). 8 C. F. R. § 1208

. 13( a)

. A “ re fu gee” under the I N A i s a p e r s o n w h o i s u n ab l e o r u n wi l l i n g to r e t urn t o h i s h o me countr y, “a nd i s un ab le or unw i l l i ng to ava i l hi m sel fo r hers el fo fthe prot ecti on o f[ ] that co untry because o f perse cuti on o r a wel l

- f ounded fearo fper secuti on o n acc ount o f r ac e, r el i g i o n, na ti o na l i ty, m embe r sh i p i n a pa r t i c ul a r s o c i a l g r o up , o r p o l i ti ca l o pi ni o n. ” 8 U. S

. C. § 1101 ( a) ( 42)

. W hen a peti ti oner est abl i shes that h e w as t he v i c t i m o fp a s tp e r s e c u t i o n, a r e b u t t ab l e p r e s umptio n th at h e h as a w ell-fo u n d ed fea r of p er se c u tio n in th e fu tu re res u lts . 8 C .F.R . § 20 8.1 3(b )(1) ; Zho u JiNi, 635 F. 3d at 1018

. To c o ns t i t ut e pe r s e c ut i o n, the ha r m s uffe r e d mus t be suffi ci entl y s eve re . The co nd uct i n questi on m u st ri se abov e the l eve l of m er e hara ssm ent; the conduct m u st “thr eat en dea th , i m pri sonm ent, o r the infl i cti on o fsub-N o. 11

- 3189 7
sta nti alhar m o r suffer i ng. ” S h a r i f v . INS , 87F. 3d 932, 935 ( 7th Cir

. 1996 )

. Vahora tes ti fi ed that he w as shot, whi chi s unqu est i o nabl y s uffi ci en tly s ev er e. The g o ve r nm ent a l so does not conte st that Vahora was shot“o n ac co unto f ” hi s r el i g i o n. That does not end the inquir y, however

. A pet i ti oner w i l l notr ecei ve asy l um i fhe c ou ld rel oca te to anothe r pa r t o f hi s c o un t r y o f na t i o na l i t y a nd i t wo ul d be r easonab l e under th e ci rcum sta nces to expect hi m to do s o. 8 C .F.R . § 20 8.1 3(b )(2) (ii); O rya khil v. M uk a sey, 5 28 F. 3d 993, 99 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)

. I n a ddi ti o n, an d m o str el ev an t here , “pers ecuti on” und er the I N A does not encom pass p u re ly p riv a t e a c tio n s. Jo na itiene v . Ho lder, 66 0 F

. 3d 267, 270 (7t h C ir. 2011). T he I N A doe s not afford reli ef, f orexam ple , to “those wh o ar e unf or tunate enough t o be v i cti m s o fordi narycri m e or gener al i zed chao s. ” Esc ob ar v. H o lder, 65 7 F

. 3d 537, 54 3 ( 7th C i r. 20 11)

. Rather, to re c e i v e p r o t e c t i o n un de r the s t a t ut e , the p e r s e c ut i on m ust be i nfl icte d by the go ver nm ent, o r by pri vate acto rs wh om the gov er nm ent i s unabl e o r u n w ill i ng to c on tr ol. Jonai t i e ne, 660 F.3d at27 0. It w as on th is b as is that the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge, and l ate r th e B IA , deni ed Vahora ’ s a syl um r equest. Vahora m ai ntai ns thatthe BIA w ro ngl y c oncl ud ed that he di d no t e s t ab l i s h tha t he wa s pe r s e c ut e d, o r had a w ell -f ou nd ed fear of futu re pe rs e c u t ion, from persons that I nd i a’ s g ove rnm ent i s unabl e o r unw i l l i ng to contro l. Vahora pre dica tes hi s cl ai m o fper secuti on o n th e a c tio n s o f P at el a n d M ist ry . H e d id n otsu gg es t in his testi m o n y t ha t Pat el orM istry w orked f or Ind ia’s8 N o. 11

- 3189 gov er nm ent, nordi d he p re sent any e vi dence thatthey di d. He ins te ad des cr ibe d the m a s l o ca l l ea der s of a po l i ti ca l pa r tya nd a Hi ndu n at i o na l i sto r g an i za ti o n. Because Vahor a a l l ege s per secut ion by pri vate act or s, to r ec ei ve a sy l um he musts ho w that Ind i a’ s g o ve r nm en t “ei th er co nd ones [ the per secuti on] o r i s hel ple ss to prevent i t. ” H o r v. G o nz a les , 421 F.3d 497, 501 (7th C ir. 2005). The BIA’s concl usi on that Vahor a f ai l ed to s how that the g ove rnm ent o fInd i a was unabl e o r unw i l l i ng to pr o te cthi m i s sup p orted bys ubs ta nt i ale vi den ce . The St ate Departm ent’ s Countr y Repor t o n H um an Ri ghts P ra c tic es for 20 08 re flec ts th at th e gov er n m en t ofIn d ia has t ake n ste ps to punish the perso n s res ponsibl e for the v i ol ence i n Guj ar at in 2 002, i ncl ud i ng l oca l l eader s o f th e B JP an d VH P an d l ocal p o lic e offi cers. Bu t Va hora did notse ek as sis ta nce fro m the author i ti es and never fi l ed any sor t o frep or t o fwh at he now says happened t o h i m. Vahora m ade no a tt empt t o s ee kpr o te ct i o n fr o m the fede r alo r s ta te g o ve r nm en t d uring the f o ury ea r s he re m ai ned in In dia pri orto hi s F ebr uary7, 20 06 departure , ev en afterhe r eloc at ed to di ffer ent c i ti es thro ughout I nd i a i n an att em pt to sta y aw ay f ro m local B JP and VH P l eader s fro m hi s ho m eto w n. H e a l so d id not com pla i n to anyo ne i n author i ty about h is a ssa i l ants afterthe i nci dents i n M um baia n d Del hi

. A l though V ah or a s p ec u lat ed th at rep or tin g t o au th or itie s w ou ld ha ve b ee n fut i l e, s ubs ta nt i ale vi den ce sup p or ts the B IA ’s d et er m in at ion oth er w ise

. Cf. O r ne l as - Chavez v. G o nz a les , 45 8 F

. 3d 1052 , 10 58 ( 9th Ci r. 20 06) ( sta ti ng anN o. 11

- 3189 9 ap p lica n t n ee d n oth av e re p or te d th e p er se c u tio n if d oin g so w oul d have be en futi l e o r subj ecte d him to furth er abu se). Th e B I A poin t ed to the 200 8 C ou nt ry Reportwh i ch i nd i cate s that the Ind i an g overnm ent was c on tin u in g e ffor ts t o fin d th os e p er so n s re sp on sib le f orvi ole n c e i n 200 2 f ol l owing the t ra i n burni ng at G od h ra , th at p olic e o ffice rs w er e be in g t rie d for t h eir al l ege d ro l es i n the vi ol ence, that p oli ti call eader s had been ar re ste d i n connect i on with t h e ri ots , and that a Speci a l I nv e s t i g a t i o n Te a m ha d b e e n i ns t i t ut e d t o l oo k i nt o the c ases r el at i ngt o the t r ain b ur ni nga nd r es ul ting com m unal ri ots
. Mo r e s p e c i fi c a l l y, th e R e p o r ts t a t e s th a tth e S u p r e me Court had fo l l owed the re com m endati ons ofa Central Revi ew Com m i tte e a nd di re cted i n 200 4 that 1 34 perso ns charge d under a differ ent s tatute forthe 2002 Guj ar at tr ai n burni ng be char ged u n d er the PenalCode. I ta l so re cou nt e d tha ti n 2 0 0 3 the Co ur th a d ins t i t ut e d a Speci alI nvest i gat i on Team to r ei nvesti gat e the Guj ar at tr ai n case s, and that w i thi n s ix m onths had arr est ed ele v e n p eo p le a lleg ed ly c on n ec te d to th e 2 00 2 t ra in burni ng and r esul ti ng co m m unal ri ots
. S i gni fi cantl y, amo n g th o s e a r r e s t e d we r e l o c a l l e a d e r s o f th e B J P a nd VH P. The Count ry R epor t a l so note s that 4 1 pol i ce o ffi ce r s wer e be i ngt r i ed f o r the i r a l l eg ed role s i n the vi o lence , a no th erf ac t r el ev an t to Va ho r a’ s ca se t o the extent he i s s ugges ti ng t h at p ol i ce o ffi cer s pre sent at th e s c e n e o fh i s s h o o t i n ga r e p e r t i n e n tt o h i s c l a i m. T h e C o u n t r y R e p o r tfu r th e r s t a t e s th a tthe S u p r e me C ou rtw a s c on tin u in g its effo rt s t o fin d th os e re sp on sib le10 N o. 11

- 3189 f o r the v i o l en ce f o l l o wi ngthe t r ain b ur ni ng a nd thatthe Cou r t ha d a sk ed Guj ar atpo l i ce t o r ev i ew the c l osu re o fnumer o us c as es wi th o uti nv est i g at i o n, tho ug h the p olic e c on c lu d ed th at a m ajori t y c o u ld n otbe rein ve st igated due t o l ac ko fwi tn es se s. I t al so no te d tha t th e N ati onalH um an Ri ghts Com m i ssi on a nd the N at ion al Com m i ssi on f orM i nor i ti es, two go ve rnm ent e nti ti es, ha d i nt er ve ne d i n s ev er alhi g h- pr o fi l e ca se s, i nc l udi ngthe 20 02 a nt i

- M us l i m v i o l en ce i n Guj ar at
. Al th o ug h many perso ns r esponsibl e fo r th e 2 002 vi ol ence sti l l have not been bro ught t o j usti c e, th e C ountr y Repor t r efl ects that the Ind i an go ver nm ent has ta ken s teps t o pu ni sh offende rs and that i t nei therco nd ones the perse cuti on Vah o r a fea r s no r i s po wer l es s to pr ev en t it. A nd al though we have cauti oned abo ut o ver re l i ance o n S ta te De par tment r epo r ts , thi s i s no t a ca se wher e th e im m igr at ion co u rtblin d ly re lied on su c h rep or ts w h ile ign or in g ot h er ev id en c e in t h e re c or d

. Cf. Gom e s v. G o nz a les , 473 F.3d 746 , 756 (7th C ir. 2007). The BIA was al so not persuaded by th e c onver sat i on V ah or a c laim s h e h ad w i t h a p olic e o ffice r inh is hospi talr oo m so on a fterthe shoo ti ng. Vah or a test i fi ed th a tw h i l e r e c o v e r i n gi n th e h o s p i t a l, a n o ffi c e r c a me to s ee hi m a nd a dvi se d h im n ot t o t el l the t r uth abo ut w h o had shot hi m and i nstea d to saythathe ha d been s ho t du r i ng a r a nd o m p o l i c e fi r i ng . Va ho ra co nt e nd s that thi s o ffi cer ’ s f ai l ure to p ro tecthi m dem onst ra tes that the I nd i an go ver nm ent was unabl e o r unw i l l i ng to prot ect hi m . Othert h an thi s co nver sat i on with a l oca l pol i ce o ffi cer, however, Vahor a nev erat tem pted to obt ai n hel p f ro m autho ri ti es i n the f our yea rs betw eenN o. 11

- 3189 11 the s hoot i ng i nci dent and hi s departure f ro m Ind i a, ev en a ft e r h e r e l o c a t e d t o d i ffe r e n t s t a t e s i n I n d i a an d e v e n tho ugh he s a i d tha tthe thr e a t s c o nt i nu e d. A lthou gh police a p a t hy can i nd icate a govern m en t’s unwi l l i ngne ss o r i nabi l i tyt o pr o te cta n a ppli ca nt, the BIA rea sonab l y dete rm i ned that the s i ngl e co nver sat i on w i th a n o n- s up e r v i s o r y p o l i c e o ffi c e r i n the h o s pi t al did not m ean that the go ver nm ent was unabl e o r u n w illing to p ro te c t V ah or a. Inco n tr as t, f o r ex am p le, in G uchshenkov v. A shcroft, 366 F.3d 554, 557-58 (7th Cir. 2004 ) , a peti ti onerco m pla i ned to pol i ce aft er he was b ea te n th e n igh t o fh is w ed d in g b y p er so n s w h o t old h i m h e s h o u l d no t ha v e ma r r i e d s o me o n e fr o m a dif fe r e ntn a t i o na l i t y . Whe n he we ntt o the p o l i c e , they r es po nde d wi thi ndi ffer en ce . Af te r he w as be at ena thi rd ti m e a nd suffer ed a l acer ate d l i ver, he wen t to th e p olic e s ta tio n se ve n tim es bu t d id n otrec eiv e h elp and was tol d a yea r l ate r that hi s case ha d be en lost f ro m t he ar chi ve and that the pol i ce were o ver l oaded w ith oth er ca se s. Id. at 556. W e a ls o f o u n d ev id en c e t h at a go ve rn m en t w as u n ab le to pr o te cta pe ti ti o ne r i n H or, 4 21 F

. 3d at5 02 , a c as e th e BI A not ed i n i ts de ci si on i n Va ho r a’ s ca se . The a ppl i ca nt i n H o r soughthel p f ro m t h e A lgeri an m i l i tar y b ut was tol d i t co uld notpro tecthi m . H e then so ug h t hel p f ro m th e co ur ts b utr ec ei ve d o nl y a d ec i si o n r ec o m m en di ng th at he b e ca ut i o us a nd k ee p a l o w pro fi l e. W e f o und that to be e vi dence thatthe gov er nm ent o fA l ger i a was in c ap a b le of p ro te c tin g t h e a p p lica n t. Se ei d. ; see a lso P r a m a ta rov v. G o nz a les , 454 F.3d 764 , 766 (7th C ir.12 N o. 11

- 3189 2 0 0 6 ) ( “ T h e r e i s s o me e v i de nc e o fg o v e r n me n t a l c o mpli ci ty, however, i n the re acti on o fm i l i tar y o ffi cer s t o P ra m at ar ov ’s c om p lain ts ab ou t b ein g b ea te n an d h u m iliat ed be ca us e o fhi s ethni ci tyand in the r efus alo fthe pol i ce t o tak e a cti on a fterhe a nd hi s wife were b eat en ou tsid e the restau ran t.”)

. W e ce r ta i nl y do no t su g g es t th at a per so n musts ee ka nd be den i ed as si st an ce se ve n ti m es to r ec ei ve as ylum

. But Vahora had neverso ught and been r efused pol i ce a ssi stance norhad he e ver m ad e a r epor t t o the pol i ce o r g o v e r nme nta utho r i t i e s o fwh a th e n o w c l a i ms ha pp en ed to h im

. C

f. Ingm a nto ro v . M uk a sey, 550 F. 3d 646, 65 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( denyi ng peti ti on wh er e no evi dence prese nted sugg est i ng tha t p olic e r efused to r espond to fi l ed re port s a nd not i ng f act th at p ol i ce di d not p re ve n t h ar m on on e o c c as ion d oe s n otco m p el a fi nd ing tha t the y w ere u n able or un w il ling to preve nt i t). An d the Co unt r y Re po r t i n the r ec o r d s ug g es ts tha t th e gov er nm ent i s no t unw i llin g orunabl e t o tak e s teps t o addr es s th e per se cut i o n o f whi ch Vah o r a co m pl ains whe n i ti s n o t i fi e d. M oreo ver, we agr ee w i th the go ver nm ent that Vaho r a ’ s t e s t i mon y u nd e r mi ne s h i s c l a i m t ha tthe I nd i an go ve rn m en t w as u n ab le or u n w illing t o c on tr ol h is a ss ailan ts
. He t es ti fi ed th atPa te l a nd M i str y wer e pur su i ng h im be c au se th ey fea re d h e w ou ld im p lica te th em in the M ar ch 3, 20 02 shoo ti ng, i ncl ud i ng to the Speci al In ve st iga tio n T ea m se t u p by th e g ov er n m e n t t o in ve st igat e the vi olen c e afterthe tr ai n burni ng. Vahor a a l so w ro te i n hi s wri tte n sta tem ent tha t th ey thre ate ned toN o. 11

- 3189 13 harm hi m f or re veal i ng thei r connect i on to th e s h oo ti ngs. Bu t thi s m oti ve f or see ki ng to si l ence Vahora suggest s that Pateland M i str y ind eed fear ed f aci ng co nsequences f ro m the gov er nm ent f or thei r cri m e. I n othe r w or ds, V ah or a’ s ass er ti on that Patel and M i str y w er e after h im to avoi d b eingi m pl i ca te d i n the s ho o tingb el i es hi s ar g um ent that the go ve rnm ent o fInd i a was notwil l i ng o r abl e t o hol d Pateland M i str y a ccountabl e o r prot ect h i m fr o m p e r s e cut i o n . Aft e r r e v i e wi n gth e r e c o r d , we con clud e tha t sub s tan tial evid en ce su p p orts the BIA ’s c o n c l u s i o n t o d e n y V a h o r a a s y l u m. Vaho r a a l s o s o ughtwi thh o l di ngo fr e mov a l

. Be c a use that sta nd ar d i s m or e s tr i ngent than the sta nd ar d fo r asy l um , an a pp l i cant who does not est abl i sh el i gibility for asylum ne cess aril y can not m eet th e high er st a n d ard for w ith h old in g of re m ov al. B ueso -A vil a v. Ho lder, 66 3 F.3 d 9 34, 93 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11)

. Thi s r equest ther ef or e f ails as w ell. Fin a l l y , Va h or a c h alle n ge s t h e B IA ’s d en ial of h is m oti on t o re open, a deci si on we re vi ew for an a buse o f d isc re tio n . Se eM o o sa v . H o lder, 64 4 F

. 3d 380, 38 4 ( 7th Cir

. 20 11)

. A m oti on t o re open p ro ceedi ngs wil l notbe g ra n te d u n les s t h e “ ev id en c e s ou gh t t o b e o ffer ed is m ate ri aland w as not avai l abl e a nd would not have b e e n di s c o v e r e d o r p r e s e nt e d a tthe p r e v i o us p r o c e e din g.” 8 C .F.R . § 12 29 a(c )(7) (C )(ii); see8 C

. F.R. § 1003

. 2(c)(1) ; M o o sa , 64 4 F

. 3d at 38 4. H er e, the onl y new evi dence V ah or a o ffer ed w as a W i ki pedia ar ti cl e o n Guj ar at and a co p y of th e S tat e Depart m ent’ s 2 004 I nter nati onal Religious F re edom Repor t. The 20 04 re portwas not new14 N o. 11

- 3189 evi dence, as the 2008 Int er nati onalRel i gi ous F re edom R e p o rtw as alre ad y in th e re c or d . A n d th e W ikip ed ia ar ti cl e was undated , s o Va ho r a f ai l ed to s ho w i t co ntai ned new i nfo rm ati on. The BI A did n ot abuse i ts discr et i o n whe n i t den i ed th e m o ti o n t o r eo pen .

I I I . C ONC L US I ON The peti ti on f orr evi ew i s D ENI ED
.

2- 25- 13