The court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the Immigration Judge’s discretionary denial of special rule cancellation of removal, citing the discretionary nature of the relief and the preclusion of judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
Regarding withholding of removal, the court denied the challenge because Khera failed to exhaust his claim before the BIA, offering only a conclusory paragraph that did not apprise the Board of the particular basis for his argument.
On the merits of Convention Against Torture protection, the court found substantial evidence supported the BIA’s denial. Khera, a Sikh, alleged he would likely be tortured if removed to India.
The only evidence of past persecution Khera cited was a 1997 high school beating by other students. The court noted he provided no evidence that the attack was inflicted by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official.
Additionally, Khera testified that his family, also Sikhs, continue to live in India without harm. The court stated this fact weakened his fear of future persecution, as similarly situated family members in the home country are not harmed.
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the petition for review of the discretionary cancellation decision and denied the challenges to withholding of removal and CAT protection.