Harpreet Singh Khera, a noncitizen, petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order that affirmed an Immigration Judge's decision denying three forms of relief: special rule cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Khera, a Sikh, alleged that he faced persecution in India. The Immigration Judge denied his request for cancellation of removal, determining that he did not merit a favorable exercise of discretion. Khera also challenged the denial of withholding and CAT relief, but the court found he did not properly present his arguments to the BIA or meet the evidentiary standards required for those claims.
The panel addressed three distinct issues. First, regarding special rule cancellation of removal, the court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the Immigration Judge's discretionary decision. Citing Santos-Zacaria v. Garland and Gonzales-Juarez v. Bondi, the court explained that while eligibility is a question of law, the decision to grant relief as a matter of grace is discretionary and precluded from judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Second, concerning withholding of removal, the court applied the exhaustion doctrine. Relying on Suate-Orellana v. Garland and Rizo v. Lynch, the court found Khera failed to provide the BIA with specific arguments, offering only a conclusory paragraph stating the IJ erred. This was insufficient to apprise the BIA of the particular basis for his claim. Third, for Convention Against Torture relief, the court applied the substantial evidence standard. To qualify, an applicant must show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by a public official. The court noted Khera's only evidence of past persecution was a 1997 high school beating by other students, which lacked evidence of state acquiescence. Furthermore, the court found Khera's fear of future persecution was undercut by the fact that his family, also Sikhs, continues to live in India without harm.
The petition is dismissed in part and denied in part. The Board of Immigration Appeals' order denying all forms of relief remains intact. Khera cannot seek judicial review of the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal, and his other claims are barred by failure to exhaust or lack of evidence. The decision reinforces the strict jurisdictional bar on reviewing discretionary immigration relief and the requirement for noncitizens to present specific, non-conclusory arguments to the BIA to preserve claims for appellate review.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download