Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 1 of 20
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 18-11910 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
Agency No. A209-908-615
WASIQ ULLAH,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________
(January 31, 2019)
Before BRANCH, HULL and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 2 of 20
Wasiq Ullah, a native and citizen of Afghanistan, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). After review, we
deny the petition for review.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS
A. Interpreter Work with U.S. Forces in Afghanistan
Between 2008 and 2011, Ullah’s brother Amdadullah worked as a linguist at
the U.S. Army Base Fenty in Afghanistan. As a result of his brother’s
employment, Ullah’s family received warnings announced over a loudspeaker at
their hometown mosque that they were in danger from the Taliban. In 2010,
Ullah’s family relocated to Jalalabad.
Between January 2011 and January 2014, Ullah worked as a linguist for the
U.S. Army at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan. Camp Leatherneck was a
trucking terminal that received and distributed supplies to security forces and
Afghan citizens. Ullah worked as an interpreter for the camp’s logistical units,
speaking with local truck drivers and other Afghans.
In August 2011, after a security screening, Ullah’s brother Amdadullah was
terminated from his linguist position because of his involvement with Taliban
sympathizers and his enabling of racism among the linguists on the base. As a
2 Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 3 of 20
result, Ullah was designated a “tier 6” risk, which did not preclude his employment
at Camp Leatherneck, but meant that Ullah was watched more closely. After his
termination, Ullah’s brother Amdadullah worked as a consultant for the Nangarhar
Provincial Council. Ullah has two other brothers who are Afghan police officers.
None of Ullah’s brothers have ever been harmed in Afghanistan.
While working at Camp Leatherneck, Ullah received four certificates of
appreciation. In 2012, Ullah began the process of applying for a special immigrant
visa under § 602(b) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-8
(March 11, 2009), based on his service as an interpreter at Camp Leatherneck.1 In
August 2013, Ullah received a Chief of Mission letter that confirmed his eligibility
to apply for a special immigrant visa, one of the required steps in the process.
B. Termination and Tier Four Security Risk Designation
On January 22, 2014, Ullah was terminated from his job at Camp
Leatherneck because he failed a routine screening conducted by a
counterintelligence officer. As part of the screening, Ullah underwent a polygraph
test and received a negative result for his answers to two questions—whether he
was a member of an anti-coalition group and whether he had ever participated in
an attack against coalition forces.
1 The special immigrant visa program is available to Afghan nationals who worked for or on behalf of U.S. forces and meet certain other requirements, including experiencing a serious threat as a consequence of their employment. 3 Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 4 of 20
As a result, Ullah was barred from Camp Leatherneck and other U.S.
installations in Afghanistan and from receiving U.S. training. In addition, the 2013
Chief of Mission letter confirming Ullah’s eligibility to apply for a special
immigrant status was revoked. In April 2014, Ullah was interviewed at the U.S.
Embassy in Kabul in connection with his application for a special immigrant visa.
Ultimately, Ullah was unable to complete the special immigrant visa process,
however, because he no longer met the requirements for the requested
classification once his Chief of Mission letter was revoked.
A counterintelligence officer subsequently prepared a memorandum
indicating that after Ullah was terminated, he was placed on “tier four” of the
Biometrics Enabled Watch List. Ullah’s tier four designation meant he was
considered a “moderate threat or risk to U.S. or coalition personnel” because he
could provide information that could lead to action against U.S. forces. The
memorandum stated that Ullah was suspected of affiliating with a foreign
intelligence security service, such as the Taliban, which meant Ullah had some
communications with a suspected foreign intelligence officer. The memorandum
indicated Ullah could pose a “force protection threat,” which meant he could have
provided information that could be used to harm U.S. forces. While the
memorandum itself was declassified so that it could be presented as evidence in
Ullah’s immigration proceedings, the information underlying the memorandum
4 Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 5 of 20
was not. The classified derogatory information about Ullah was based on more
than Ullah’s failed polygraph test and his termination at Camp Leatherneck.
C. Subsequent Years in Afghanistan
From June 2014 until September 2016, Ullah studied political science at Al
Falah University in Jalalabad, commuting to the university by biking, walking, or
riding in car. While Ullah attended the university, some people around the
university or in his neighborhood were kidnapped or killed by opposition groups.
According to Ullah, opposition forces such as the Taliban tried to kill people who
cooperated with the Afghan government or who worked with U.S forces, including
as interpreters. To protect himself, Ullah kept secret his former work as an
interpreter, remained mostly in his home, and did not attend social events or travel
outside the city. Ullah also received warnings from the Nangarhar Provincial
Council that he was in danger because of his past work with U.S. forces. However,
neither Ullah nor his brother Amdadullah, who also had worked as a linguist for
U.S. forces, was ever harmed in Afghanistan.
Before leaving Afghanistan, Ullah met with his brother Amdadullah in
Kabul. Amdadullah took a farewell photo of Ullah standing in a public park
wearing western attire. Amdadullah posted the photo on Facebook along with
other photos of his family.
5 Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 6 of 20
D. Entry into the United States and Removal Proceedings
In late September 2016, Ullah left Afghanistan and paid $16,000 to be
smuggled through several countries and into Mexico. After reaching Brownsville,
Texas, Ullah applied for admission to the United States without a valid entry
document. In a credible fear interview, Ullah stated that he feared persecution in
Afghanistan because of his past interpreter work for the U.S. Army.
In removal proceedings, Ullah admitted that he was an immigrant applying
for admission to the United States who did not possess a valid passport or other
entry document and conceded his removability under Immigration and Nationality
Act (“INA”) § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(1). Ullah applied
for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, contending that he feared
persecution by the Taliban and other insurgent groups based on his political
opinion and membership in a particular social group.2 Ullah submitted 2012 and
2013 letters from his supervisors at Camp Leatherneck recommending Ullah for a
special immigrant visa and copies of the undated letters purportedly from
government officials in Nangarhar stating that opponents of the Afghan
government had threatened Ullah’s life and the life of his family members. 3
2 Ullah also moved to terminate the removal proceedings based on his purported eligibility for a special immigrant visa. Ullah’s petition for review does not challenge the denial of this motion, and we do not discuss it further. 3 The only translations of these three letters in the record were prepared by Ullah and do not contain dates. 6 Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 7 of 20
Ullah also filed country background exhibits, including the U.S State
Department’s 2015 Report on Human Rights Practices in Afghanistan (“country
report”), which noted that insurgent groups made indiscriminate attacks on
civilians and killed persons affiliated with the government. One 2017 New York
Times article reported that a suicide bomber, who had worked at Bagram Air Base
and had links to the Taliban, killed Afghan security guards working for a U.S
military contractor on the base. Also, the military had reduced the number of
Afghan workers at the base in part due to force protection concerns. Other 2017
New York Times articles noted Taliban attacks on Afghan police and security
forces and reported Taliban or ISIS control of parts of Afghanistan. A 2013
Washington Post article about the State Department’s administration of the special
immigrant visa program included a report of a former Afghan interpreter for the
U.S. Marines who was kidnapped and killed outside Kabul days after he had
completed his visa interview. Additional articles described various political
developments regarding the U.S. special immigrant visa program over the past
several years, violence in Afghanistan, including fighting between pro- and anti-
government forces and attacks on civilians, U.S. foreign policy and the bombing of
ISIS militants, and government corruption in Afghanistan.
The government moved to pretermit the asylum and withholding of removal
portions of Ullah’s application based on statutory national security bars to these
7 Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 8 of 20
forms of relief. Under these statutes, an applicant is barred from relief if there are
“reasonable grounds” to believe the applicant is a danger to the security of the
United States. See INA § 208(b)(2)(A)(iv), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(iv)
(asylum); INA § 241(b)(3)(B)(iv), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(iv) (withholding of
removal).
At Ullah’s merits hearings, the government presented expert testimony from
U.S. Army Colonel Paul Sarat, Jr. in support of its claim that the national security
bars applied. Colonel Sarat explained the special immigrant visas application
process and the termination process for Afghan interpreters working with the
military. Colonel Sarat also testified about the military’s documentation relating to
Ullah’s termination and tier-four risk designation. Ullah testified in support of his
claims for relief and stated that people in Afghanistan knew that he had worked for
the U.S. Army and that he believed his life was in danger there.
F. IJ’s Decision
The IJ issued a written decision denying Ullah all requested relief. The IJ
made the following relevant findings of fact: (1) Ullah was not a combat linguist
during his employment as a contract interpreter for the U.S. military from 2011 to
2014; (2) Ullah was never threatened or harmed while working as an interpreter at
Camp Leatherneck or when he left the base on leave; (3) Ullah was terminated
after a routine periodic security screening at Camp Leatherneck and was suspected
8 Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 9 of 20
of being affiliated with a foreign intelligence security service; (4) Ullah was barred
from entering U.S. installations and receiving U.S. training provided to Afghan
police or military forces; (5) Ullah applied for a special immigrant visa and
received a Chief of Mission approval letter, but the approval was revoked after the
nature of his termination was ascertained; (6) for two and a half years after his
termination, Ullah attended a university that did not have security guards; (7)
during that time, Ullah was not harmed or threatened; and (8) before Ullah left
Afghanistan, Ullah’s brother posted a picture on Facebook of Ullah in a public
place wearing western garb.
In addition, the IJ found that the unauthenticated letters submitted by Ullah
purportedly from the Nangarhar Provincial Council were fabricated based on
inconsistencies and typos in the letters. The IJ also made an express finding that
Ullah was not credible, finding Ullah’s testimony was weak and uncorroborated by
reliable evidence, Ullah’s claim that he received threats over a loudspeaker was
unbelievable, and Ullah was evasive and non-responsive during cross-examination.
The IJ concluded, inter alia, that the government had met its initial burden to
show that the national security bars applied and that Ullah had not met his burden
to show that they did not. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) (providing that “[i]f the
evidence indicates that one or more of the grounds for mandatory denial of the
9 Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 10 of 20
application for relief may apply, the alien shall have the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that such grounds do not apply”).
Alternatively, the IJ considered Ullah’s claims on the merits. As to Ullah’s
asylum claim, the IJ acknowledged that Ullah must show “either that he would be
singled out for persecution . . . or that, within that country, there is a pattern or
practice of persecution, on account of a protected ground, of those similarly-
situated to him and that he identifies with the group such that his fear is
reasonable.” The IJ concluded that Ullah had not established a well-founded fear
of future persecution because “the record does not suggest that he has a well-
founded fear of future persecution.” The IJ pointed out that: (1) Ullah relied on
fabricated documents; (2) his family members continued to live open lives as
current Afghan government employees and had not been harmed; (3) Ullah
attended university for two years and suffered no harm or threats of harm; and
(4) Ullah never personally received any threats from anyone, let alone the Taliban.4
The IJ also concluded that, because Ullah had not met the lower burden to show
eligibility for asylum, he also had not met his burden to show eligibility for
withholding of removal.
4 The IJ elaborated upon its reasons for discrediting Ullah, but we do not include them because the BIA ultimately did not adopt the IJ’s credibility finding. 10 Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 11 of 20
The IJ determined that Ullah also was ineligible for CAT relief because he
had lived for two years in Afghanistan without being harmed, as had his brother
Amdadullah, who also had worked as a linguist. The IJ acknowledged Ullah’s
evidence of “unrest in Afghanistan . . . at the hands of government opposition
forces, including ISIS and the Taliban.” But the IJ concluded that Ullah’s
references to “vague statements in country reports,” along with his unreliable
testimony, were insufficient to show Ullah faced “a foreseeable, real, and personal
danger of being subjected to torture by the Taliban or other government opposition
forces.”
G. Appeal to the BIA
Ullah appealed to the BIA, raising numerous issues, most of which are not
reasserted in his petition for review filed in this Court. Relevant here, Ullah
challenged: (1) the IJ’s determination that his asylum and withholding of removal
claims were subject to national security bars; and (2) the IJ’s alternative finding
that Ullah had not shown a well-founded fear of future persecution. As to the
second issue, Ullah argued that he had demonstrated “his inclusion in a group of
similarly situated persons who have worked as linguists for the U.S. military, who
have experienced a pattern and practice of persecution on account of membership
in that particular social group.”
11 Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 12 of 20
The BIA dismissed Ullah’s appeal. The BIA concluded that the IJ had
properly applied the national security bars.
The BIA also affirmed the IJ’s alternative determination that Ullah did not
demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution in Afghanistan due to his
work as an interpreter. The BIA stressed that Ullah had never personally been
threatened. The BIA noted that Ullah’s family had been threatened over a
loudspeaker at a mosque, but that this threat had occurred before Ullah’s
employment at Camp Leatherneck, and after his termination, Ullah had lived safely
in Afghanistan for two years while attending university. The BIA noted that
Ullah’s family, all of whom were government supporters and some of whom were
government employees, had never been harmed by the Taliban or other terrorist
groups, including his brother who also worked as an interpreter for the U.S.
military and now worked for a local government. In addition, Ullah’s brother had
posted pictures of himself and his family on Facebook, which indicated Ullah’s
brother did not fear that the Taliban would target him. The BIA stated that it
“discern[ed] no clear error in the Immigration Judge’s finding that the respondent
did not have a well-founded fear of being targeted upon return to Afghanistan
because of his past employment as an interpreter.”
The BIA rejected Ullah’s argument that the IJ “did not sufficiently consider
the letters” from Nangahar provincial officials, noting that they were
12 Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 13 of 20
unauthenticated and “insufficient to establish that [Ullah] has a well-founded fear
of persecution in Afghanistan.” The BIA determined that “[t]o the extent [Ullah]
argues on appeal that the Immigration Judge did not consider his claim of pattern
or practice of persecution, he does not point to any specific evidence that would
satisfy his burden of proof.” The BIA also explained that Ullah’s country
conditions evidence described generally “the fighting between U.S. forces and
insurgent groups” and provided “some evidence that Afghans who work with the
U.S. military are harmed” but did not “demonstrate, however, that persecution is
sufficiently systemic or widespread” to establish “a pattern or practice of
persecution against former interpreters for the U.S. military.”
The BIA agreed with the IJ that, on the record before it, Ullah had not met
his burden of establishing eligibility for asylum or the more stringent standard for
withholding of removal. The BIA also agreed that Ullah had not shown it was
more likely than not that Ullah would be tortured by terrorist groups or that the
Afghan government would acquiesce to such torture.
II. DISCUSSION
Ullah’s petition for review challenges only the denial of his claims for
asylum and withholding of removal based on his fear of future persecution on
account of his membership in the particular social group of former U.S. military
13 Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 14 of 20
interpreters. 5 In addition, Ullah’s petition for review explicitly waives his asylum
and withholding of removal claims based on an individualized fear of persecution.
Thus, Ullah’s asylum and withholding of removal claims now rely solely on a
pattern-or-practice theory of future persecution.
As to those future persecution claims, Ullah argues that: (1) the IJ and the
BIA applied the incorrect legal standards and burden of proof with respect to the
statutory national security bars; and (2) the BIA engaged in impermissible fact
finding in addressing Ullah’s pattern-or-practice argument. For reasons that will
follow, we conclude Ullah has not shown legal error in the BIA’s review of his
pattern-or-practice future persecution claims. Because in this Court Ullah does not
contest whether the record evidence shows a pattern or practice of persecution
against former interpreters for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, this ground for denying
Ullah’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal stands. We therefore
decline to address the agency’s alternative ruling that Ullah’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims are precluded by national security bars.
5 By failing to raise them in his petition for review, Ullah has abandoned his persecution claims based on imputed political opinion, his claim for CAT relief, and any evidentiary issues as to the unauthenticated letters purportedly from Nangarhar officials. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005). 14 Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 15 of 20
A. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
As a threshold matter, we must address the government’s argument that we
lack jurisdiction to address Ullah’s argument about his pattern-or-practice claim
because he did not exhaust it before the BIA. 6
We “may review a final order or removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted
all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.” INA § 242(d)(1), 8
U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). The exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional and ordinarily
precludes review of a claim the petitioner did not present in his appeal to the BIA.
Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006).
This Court has held, however, that it has jurisdiction to address a petitioner’s
newly raised argument that is “about [an error] displayed in [the BIA’s] decision
not yet in existence.” Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1299 (11th Cir.
2015). In Indrawati, the petitioner argued that the BIA’s decision reflected a lack
of reasoned consideration. Id. at 1289. This Court rejected as “facially
nonsensical” the government’s contention that the petitioner had failed to exhaust
her claim given that the BIA’s decision did not yet exist when she made her
arguments to the BIA. Id. at 1295-96, 1299. As such, the Court concluded that it
6 We review our subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Gonzalez-Oropeza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003). 15 Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 16 of 20
had jurisdiction to address the petitioner’s reasoned-consideration issue. Id. at
1299.
Like the petitioner in Indrawati, Ullah could not have raised his improper
fact-finding claim before the BIA issued its final decision. Thus, under Indrawati,
Ullah was not required to raise his claim in order to administratively exhaust that
issue. 7
B. Pattern-or-Practice Claim
To establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, an asylum applicant
must show that there is a reasonable possibility he will suffer persecution on
account of a protected ground—here membership in a particular social group—if
he returns to his country. Mehmeti v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1196, 1200 (11th
Cir. 2009). Generally, an asylum applicant must present “specific, detailed facts
showing a good reason to fear that he or she will be singled out for persecution.”
Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1287 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotation marks
omitted). However, an applicant need not establish a reasonable possibility that he
will be singled out for persecution “if the applicant instead proves that he is a
7 The government cites as persuasive authority other circuits that have concluded that a petitioner’s improper fact-finding claim must be raised in a motion for reconsideration to be administratively exhausted. We, however, are bound by Indrawati’s explicit jurisdictional holding. See Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc., 645 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Under the prior panel precedent rule, we are bound by earlier panel holdings unless and until they are overruled en banc or by the Supreme Court.”); see also In re Bradford, 830 F.3d 1273, 1278 (11th Cir. 2016) (explaining that we are bound by a prior panel’s explicit jurisdictional holding). 16 Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 17 of 20
member of, or is identified with, a group that is subjected to a ‘pattern or practice’
of persecution in his country of nationality.” Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577
F.3d 1341, 1352 (11th Cir. 2009); see also 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13(b)(2)(iii),
208.16(b)(2).
The BIA has stated that persecution of a particular social group must be
“systemic or pervasive” to amount to a “pattern or practice.” See In re A-M-, 23 I.
& N. Dec. 737, 741 (BIA 2005) (quotation marks omitted).8 As the Seventh
Circuit has explained, this “standard is high because once the court finds that a
group was subject to a pattern or practice of persecution, every member of the
group is eligible for [immigration relief].” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 669, 675
(7th Cir. 2006).
The BIA must consider all relevant evidence but must “not engage in
factfinding in the course of deciding appeals.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv). The
BIA is limited to clear error review of the facts determined by the IJ and cannot
review the evidence de novo. Id. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i). The BIA, however, “may
review questions of law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues in appeals
from decisions of immigration judges de novo.” Id. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii). A future
8 Because Congress had not defined what constitutes a pattern or practice of persecution, we defer to the BIA’s reasonable definition of this term. See Castillo-Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1190, 1196 (11th Cir. 2006) (applying Chevron deference to the BIA’s definition of what constitutes a “particular social group”). 17 Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 18 of 20
persecution claim presents a mixed question of law and fact, with the fact question
being what harm is likely to happen if the applicant is returned to his country and
the legal question being whether that predicted harm “meet[s] the legal standard
for a well-founded fear of persecution.” Zhu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 703 F.3d 1303,
1312 (11th Cir. 2013). The BIA may not find the facts pertaining to the well-
founded fear determination or review de novo those facts found by the IJ. Id. at
1311-14. The BIA can reweigh evidence before the IJ but only if it is “through the
prism of clear error.” Id. at 1315.
Here, the BIA did not engage in impermissible factfinding in reviewing
Ullah’s pattern-or-practice argument. The BIA’s final decision correctly stated
that the standard of review for the IJ’s fact findings was clear error and later
explicitly stated that it found “no clear error” as to the IJ’s fact finding that Ullah
did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his status as a
former interpreter. The BIA addressed Ullah’s argument that the IJ “did not
consider his claim of pattern or practice of persecution” and explained that Ullah
had not pointed to any specific evidence that would meet the demanding
“sufficiently systemic and widespread” standard for a pattern-or-practice claim.
See Kazemzadeh, 577 F.3d at 1351 (stating that the agency is not required to
address every argument or piece of evidence proffered by the petitioner). In
support, the BIA noted that Ullah’s country conditions evidence (which the IJ
18 Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 19 of 20
referenced in his decision) showed only general fighting between U.S. forces and
insurgent groups and provided only “some evidence” that Afghans who work for
U.S. forces were harmed and did not provide sufficient evidence of harm to former
interpreters to suggest a viable pattern-or-practice claim.
Moreover, the BIA did not reject any of the IJ’s fact findings, did not find
any facts in the first instance, and did not reference any evidence upon which the IJ
did not also rely in making the ultimate determination that Ullah did not
demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in Afghanistan. For instance, the
IJ noted that Ullah introduced evidence that Afghanistan was in a state of unrest
“at the hands of” the Taliban and other insurgent groups but that the country
reports were vague as to the danger to Ullah as a government supporter and former
linguist. In other words, the facts on which the BIA relied were already in the
record and were mentioned by the IJ in his decision. Having accepted the IJ’s
assessment of the evidence under the proper clear-error standard, the BIA merely
elaborated upon why Ullah’s country conditions evidence was not sufficient to
meet the demanding standard for a pattern-or-practice persecution claim.
Ullah’s reliance on Zhu is misplaced. In Zhu, the BIA explicitly stated that
its review was de novo and reversed the IJ’s finding that there was a likelihood that
the applicant would be sterilized upon her return to China. See Zhu, 703 F.3d at
1314-16. Here, in contrast, the BIA said it was applying a clear-error standard to
19 Case: 18-11910 Date Filed: 01/31/2019 Page: 20 of 20
review the IJ’s finding that Ullah did not have a well-founded fear of persecution,
and the BIA cited facts from the record to affirm the IJ’s decision not to address
explicitly Ullah’s pattern-or-practice claim. In other words, the BIA’s review of
the pattern-or-practice evidence was not de novo, but rather “through the prism of
clear error.” See id. at 1315 (emphasis omitted).
III. CONCLUSION
The BIA did not err in reviewing Ullah’s pattern-or-practice future
persecution claims. As we already have noted, Ullah does not argue that the record
compels a conclusion that there was a pattern or practice in Afghanistan of
persecuting former U.S. military translators. Accordingly, we have no occasion to
disturb the denial of Ullah’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal
on that ground.
PETITION DENIED.