Khaira v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Khaira v. Holder

324 F. App'x 641

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 28, 2009

DocketNo. 06-73469

StatusPublished

This text of 324 F. App'x 641 (Khaira v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Khaira v. Holder, 324 F. App'x 641 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Jasbir Singh Khaira, Amritpal Kaur Khaira, Kuljeet Kaur Khaira and Satbeer Singh Khaira, all natives of India and citizens of Kenya, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003) and we deny in part and grant in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s findings that the general harassment and discrimination petitioners suffered in Kenya, the April 2002 incident in which a mob of people accosted petitioners and the May 2002 incident in which local officials required a bribe did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1016-18; Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995).

The IJ and BIA failed to address the petitioners’ well-founded fear contention, see Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir.1995) (agency’s decision “must contain a statement of its reasons for denying the petitioner relief adequate for us to conduct our review”), and the BIA erred by failing to address their due process claims that the IJ did not address their asylum claim [642]*642from India, and the IJ ordered them removed to Kenya and not India, see Barroso v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1195, 1208 (9th Cir.2005) (the BIA is not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner in his appellate brief).

Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Jasbir Singh Khaira, Amritpal Kaur Khaira, Kuljeet Kaur Khaira and Satbeer Singh Khaira, all natives of India and citizens of Kenya, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-18 (9th Cir. 2003) and we deny in part and grant in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s findings that the general harassment and discrimination petitioners suffered in Kenya, the April 2002 incident in which a mob of people accosted petitioners and the May 2002 incident in which local officials required a bribe did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1016-18; Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995).

The IJ and BIA failed to address the petitioners’ well-founded fear contention, see Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir.1995) (agency’s decision “must contain a statement of its reasons for denying the petitioner relief adequate for us to conduct our review”), and the BIA erred by failing to address their due process claims that the IJ did not address their asylum claim [642]*642from India, and the IJ ordered them removed to Kenya and not India, see Barroso v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 1195, 1208 (9th Cir.2005) (the BIA is not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner in his appellate brief).

Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 F. App'x 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/khaira-v-holder-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack