Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-11-2005
Akhtar v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-3789
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Akhtar v. Atty Gen USA" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 876.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/876
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________________
NO. 04-3789
____________________
SYED ATIF AKHTAR,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent
____________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Board No. A79-120-211)
______________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 30, 2005
Before: RENDELL, BARRY and BECKER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: July 11, 2005 )
________________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
________________________
BECKER, Circuit Judge.
This is a petition for review by Syed Atif Akhtar, a native and citizen of Pakistan,
of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming, without opinion, a decision
by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Akhtar’s requests for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Because the IJ’s ultimate
decision to deny his application was supported by substantial evidence, as Akhtar has not
shown that he will be persecuted if forced to return to Pakistan, the petition will be
denied.1
Akhtar makes two arguments in support of his asylum claim. First, he contends
that he would face persecution as a liberal, pro-American, Sufi Muslim in a country that is
becoming increasingly intolerant. Second, he argues that he would be persecuted in
Pakistan because of his disability. We are unpersuaded by the Government’s timeliness
argument, hence we reach the merits.2
I.
The IJ properly rejected Akhtar’s claim that he would face persecution in Pakistan
due to his status as a pro-American, liberal, Sufi Muslim. Akhtar argued before the IJ
that Pakistan has become increasingly fundamentalist and intolerant since the attacks of
1
While we uphold the decision of the IJ, we would be remiss if we did not evince our
dismay about the irreverent and unprofessional tone of some of the IJ’s remarks, e.g.,
“Without doubt the respondent clearly prefers his life here, the carefree, tax free fun time
that the respondent was having in the United States until the mean old Immigration
officer put him in these proceedings,” A-28. We trust that the IJ will be more
circumspect in the future.
2
We are also unpersuaded by the argument about the lack of a disability determination.
2
September 11, 2001. He claimed that the country is now dominated by Sunni Muslims of
the Wahhabi sect, and that other Muslims of less fundamentalist sects, such as Sufis, are
persecuted. He also argued that Muslims who have lived in the United States or are
otherwise seen as pro-American suffer similar persecution, as Wahhabi clerics have
issued fatwas requiring Muslims to fight against the United States.
In support of his claim, Akhtar provided statements from his brother, Asif, his
father, and himself. Asif’s statement recounted how, following his wedding in Pakistan,
several fundamentalist Muslims threatened him and his father, claiming that they were
“disgusted” by certain modern aspects of the ceremony. It also stated that Akhtar’s
parents have been robbed three times. (A-210.) Akhtar’s father’s statement is not part of
the record we have, but it apparently recounted some of the threats that Akhtar’s parents
have faced. (A-27.) Akhtar’s own statement described conditions in Pakistan in general
terms and expressed his own fear of returning. (A-221 to A-223.)
The IJ properly concluded that Akhtar had not shown that he had a well-founded
fear of future persecution. Akthar has pointed to no evidence in the record showing that
he has faced persecution in the past. The IJ found that the robberies Akhtar’s parents had
suffered did not constitute persecution as the motivation for them was primarily financial,
and this conclusion is supported by substantial evidence. While Akhtar argues that he
would face persecution were he forced to return (in fact, he testified that he is “going to
get killed” if forced to return, A-131), most of his claim is based on general country
3
conditions in Pakistan. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record showing an
unwillingness or inability on the part of the Pakistani government to protect Akhtar and
his family. (In fact, the Pakistani Government has helped Akhtar’s family move within
Pakistan.) In Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530 (3d Cir. 2005), this Court held that “evidence
of general ethnic difficulties would not compel a reasonable factfinder to conclude that”
the robberies in that case constituted persecution. Id. at 535-36. We believe the same
principle applies in this case. Since Akhtar’s claim is premised on general conditions in
Pakistan, the IJ’s decision was clearly supported by substantial evidence.
II.
In 1991, Akhtar was involved in a serious motorcycle accident. As a result of the
accident, doctors amputated most of one foot; his other leg is also badly disfigured. (A-
221.) He is ambulatory, but has great difficulty taking care of himself and relies heavily
on his brother. (A-210 to A-211.) He came to the United States on a medical visa and
has received some treatment here for his injuries.
Akhtar argued before the IJ that he was entitled to asylum because, as an
individual with a disability, he would be persecuted in Pakistan. He claimed that
Wahhabi Muslims view the disabled as outcasts who are responsible for causing their
own disabilities. He testified that he was teased repeatedly in the years following his
accident and ultimately decided to confine himself to one room in his parent’s house. (A-
92.)
4
The IJ found that the treatment Akhtar described did not rise to the level of
persecution. She first noted that Akhtar had not argued that he would be unable to obtain
medical care in Pakistan. (A-17.) She accepted his contention that medical care in
Pakistan is significantly worse than in the United States, but found that he had pointed to
no evidence showing that he would be discriminated against in the treatment he received.
She then concluded that Akhtar would be able to provide for himself in Pakistan based on
his experience as a salesman in the United States, and would further be able to rely on his
parents for support. She also noted that he had lived in Pakistan for four years following
his accident, apparently without serious incident. As a result, she rejected Akhtar’s claim
for asylum.
Substantial evidence supports this decision. Akhtar has pointed to no evidence
showing that the treatment of disabled individuals in Pakistan rises to the level of
persecution, and we see none in the record. While his testimony that individuals with
disabilities are often treated as outcasts seems credible, such treatment does not constitute
persecution. Additionally, the fact that he lived in Pakistan for several years with his
disability without suffering persecution further undercuts his claim.
The petition for review will be denied.
5