Agha, et al. v. Holder, Jr., No. 12-3640 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner and his wife sought review of the BIA's order affirming the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of petitioner's first argument on appeal regarding the BIA's failure to determine his nationality because it had been waived; the BIA's conclusion that petitioner failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his status as a Palestinian refugee, or in the alternative, his Palestinian nationality, was supported by substantial evidence; the court rejected petitioner's argument that he was entitled to asylum because, as a stateless person, no government would accept him; the plain language of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A) required a stateless person to show the same well-founded fear of persecution as an individual with a nationality; the decision to deny asylum was supported by substantial evidence and the evidence in the administrative record was not so compelling that no reasonable factfinder would be forced to conclude otherwise; because petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily could not meet the more rigorous standard for withholding of removal; and, because petitioner relied on the same evidence to support his claim of protection under the CAT, he failed to demonstrate that he would more likely than not be tortured in any of the countries designated for removal. The court rejected petitioner's due process arguments because they directly mirror his substantive issues. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.
Court Description: Petition for Review - immigration. Petitioner, of Palestinian origin but considers himself stateless, entered as a visitor on an Indian passport and stayed beyond the time authorized. He petitions for review denial of asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Because petitioner failed to present claim that Board of Immigration Appeals failed to determine his nationality or lack thereof as a predicate to a determination of his asylum eligibility, he failed to exhaust this claim and this court lacks jurisdiction to review it. Substantial evidence supports conclusion that petitioner did not establish an individualized well-founded fear of persecution if he were returned to Lebanon. Petitioner's failure to object to immigration judge's refusal to hear testimony about business dispute was waived. A "stateless" person bears the same burden to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. Decision to deny asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture is supported by substantial evidence. Due process claim fails. Petition for review is denied.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.