Bilal Hussain v. Jeffrey Rosen


FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BILAL HUSSAIN, No. 18-70780 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A209-171-424 JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted August 12, 2020 Pasadena, California Filed January 11, 2021 Before: Consuelo M. Callahan, Patrick J. Bumatay, and Lawrence VanDyke, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge VanDyke 2 HUSSAIN V. ROSEN SUMMARY * Immigration Denying Pakistani national Bilal Hussain’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and that the immigration judge did not deprive Hussain of due process. The panel held that the IJ provided Hussain, who was pro se, due process by providing details about the structure of the hearing and the availability of counsel, and asking numerous questions through which Hussain had ample opportunity to develop his testimony. The panel rejected Hussain’s assertion that the IJ repeatedly misled him about what he needed to show to meet his burdens by asking open-ended questions and failing to adequately probe the record. Rather, the panel explained that the IJ developed the record in its role as an independent fact-finder, and it was Hussain’s responses that determined the scope of the testimony elicited. The panel also rejected Hussain’s reliance on Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 2000), for the proposition that IJs must go beyond their impartial role and instead essentially act as advocates for pro se asylum applicants. The panel explained that it could not read Jacinto’s imprecise “fully-develop-the-record-for-pro-se- petitioners” dicta as expansively as Hussain seeks without doing serious harm to the adversarial process established by * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. HUSSAIN V. ROSEN 3 Congress for petitioners like Hussain. The panel also concluded that, even if Hussain could demonstrate error, he did not show prejudice, where he failed to point to any additional evidence concerning past persecution or the other grounds upon which the Board denied relief. The panel held that the evidence did not compel the finding of past persecution, where Hussain did not testify to any individualized physical attacks or threats, and he failed to show sufficient economic or psychological harm. The panel also held that Hussain failed to establish that the Pakistani government was unable to control the Taliban, noting that Hussain failed to report his two attacks to authorities, and that record evidence demonstrated that the government’s significant efforts to combat terrorism and sectarian violence had resulted in a substantial reduction in terror-related fatalities. Although Hussain argued that he did not report the attacks because police provide no protection, the panel noted that even if the government’s response to Hussain’s two attacks was lacking, the standard is not that the government can prevent all risk ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals