Matter of K. S. H
Case Number: 29 I&N Dec. 307 (BIA 2025)
Date: November 17, 2025
Summary:
In Matter of K. S. H-, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a published precedent decision addressing the standard for establishing that a government is “unable or unwilling” to protect an applicant from persecution by private actors. The respondent, a Sikh native and citizen of India, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on harm inflicted by private individuals affiliated with Hindu nationalist groups. Although the Immigration Judge found the respondent credible and acknowledged harm on account of religion, relief was denied on the ground that the respondent failed to show government responsibility for the persecution. The BIA affirmed, holding that a single attempt to report harm to local police—without further mistreatment by police or evidence of systemic government collusion—does not establish that a government, as a whole, is unable or unwilling to provide protection. The Board further concluded that the respondent failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution or a likelihood of torture upon return to India. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision was designated as binding precedent.
Attorneys: Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Esquire, Law Office of Ashwani Bhakhri, represented the respondent.
Full Publication: Click Here
Zia v. Garland
Case Number: 21-1325 (9th Cir. 2024)
Date: August 26, 2024
Summary:
In Zia v. Garland, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed Zohaib Zia’s petition challenging the denial of his good faith marriage waiver, a requirement to remove conditions on his U.S. residency following his divorce. Zia, a Pakistani national, argued his marriage was genuine. However, both the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found his testimony not credible and denied his waiver, concluding the marriage was not entered into in good faith. The court, limited by recent Supreme Court rulings, upheld the BIA’s decision. It ruled it lacked jurisdiction to review factual determinations like credibility but could review legal aspects of the “good faith” determination. Ultimately, the court dismissed Zia’s claims, affirming that he failed to prove the marriage was bona fide, and rejected his due process challenge concerning an incomplete hearing transcript, finding no prejudicial impact. This case underscores the deference courts must give to agency findings on discretionary matters and credibility assessments in immigration proceedings.
Attorneys: Ashwani K. Bhakhri and Joseph J. Siguenza from Bhakhri Law Firm (Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri) represented the petitioner, Zohaib Zia.
Full Publication: This opinion can be accessed in the Ninth Circuit archives.
Pannu v. Holder
Case Number: 07-71988 (9th Cir. 2011)
Date: May 11, 2011
Summary:
In Pannu v. Holder, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals reviewed Gursharan Singh Pannu’s petition
challenging his removability due to multiple
convictions, including failure to register as a sex
offender. Pannu, a lawful permanent resident from
India, faced removal after being convicted of two
crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs). The Board
of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had classified his
failure to register conviction as a CIMT based on a
prior BIA decision. However, legal developments,
including new requirements for CIMT analysis and the
importance of scienter (intent), led the Ninth
Circuit to remand the case. The court instructed the
BIA to re-evaluate whether Pannu’s conviction indeed
constituted a CIMT under updated standards,
potentially affecting his removability. This case
illustrates the evolving legal interpretations
around CIMTs and the significance of intent in such
determinations.
Full
Publication: This opinion can be found
in the Ninth
Circuit archives.
Sinha v. Holder
Case Number: Nos. 04-73843, 07-72289 (9th Cir. 2009)
Date: February 10, 2009
Summary:
In Sinha v. Holder, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals reviewed Navin Sinha’s petition challenging
the denial of his application for asylum and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Represented by attorneys Ashwani K. Bhakhri and
Joseph J. Siguenza from Bhakhri Law Firm (Law
Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri), Sinha, an ethnic
Indo-Fijian, presented evidence of past persecution
and a well-founded fear of future persecution in
Fiji due to his ethnicity. He recounted multiple
violent incidents targeting him and his family,
especially during political upheaval aimed at the
Indo-Fijian minority. The court ruled in Sinha’s
favor, finding that the cumulative impact of these
incidents substantiated his claims of persecution.
The case was remanded for the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) to reassess his eligibility for
asylum, taking into account the documented threats
and violence he endured.
Full
Publication: The full opinion can be
accessed here.
Maharaj v. Gonzales
Case Number: 450 F.3d 961 (9th Cir. 2006)
Date: June 1, 2006
Summary:
In this significant Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
case, the Bhakhri Law Firm (Law Offices of Ashwani
K. Bhakhri) represented petitioner Vinodh Parsad
Maharaj and his family in their appeal for asylum in
the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) had denied their application, citing “firm
resettlement” in Canada as a barrier to asylum.
However, the Ninth Circuit determined that the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had not
provided sufficient evidence to prove that the
Maharaj family had received an offer of permanent
resettlement in Canada. The court remanded the case
for further proceedings, highlighting the firm’s
ability to navigate complex asylum barriers and to
ensure that legal standards are met. This successful
outcome underscores the firm’s commitment to
defending clients in challenging asylum
cases.
Full Publication: Full
Publication: The full opinion can be accessed
here: Maharaj v.
Gonzales Opinion.
Maharaj v. Gonzales
Case Number: 416 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2005)
Date: August 4, 2005
Summary:
In this Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Vinodh
Maharaj, a Fijian citizen, sought asylum in the
U.S., alleging persecution due to his political
affiliation with the Coalition Labor Party, a group
supporting Indo-Fijians. Maharaj and his family
faced threats and harassment following Fiji’s 1987
coup, prompting them to seek refuge in Canada, where
they resided for four years. However, both the
Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) denied his asylum request, citing
“firm resettlement” in Canada. They reasoned that
Canada had provided the family with adequate safety
and rights, disqualifying them from U.S. asylum
under resettlement grounds. The Ninth Circuit’s
decision highlights the complexities of asylum
eligibility when previous residency in a third
country is involved.
Full
Publication: Full Publication: The full
opinion can be accessed here: Maharaj v.
Gonzales Opinion.
Singh v. Ashcroft
Case Number: 393 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2004)
Date: December 27, 2004
Summary:
In this landmark Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case,
Joseph Siguenza and Ashwani Bhakhri from the Bhakhri
Law Firm (Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri), based
in Burlingame, CA, successfully represented
petitioner Surender Jeet Singh in his appeal for
asylum. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had
initially denied Singh’s request, citing credibility
concerns due to lack of corroborative evidence.
However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the BIA’s
decision, ruling that the agency should have taken
administrative notice of the existence of India’s
Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), a widely
recognized fact. This favorable outcome highlights
the firm’s expertise in complex immigration cases
and its effective advocacy for clients facing
credibility challenges in asylum
claims.
Full Publication: The
full opinion can be accessed here.
Singh v. Ashcroft
Case Number: 301 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2002)
Date: August 19, 2002
Summary:
In this pivotal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case,
the Bhakhri Law Firm (Law Offices of Ashwani K.
Bhakhri) successfully represented petitioner Baljit
Singh, with attorneys Joseph Siguenza and Ashwani
Bhakhri advocating for Singh’s right to asylum. The
Immigration Judge (IJ) had initially denied Singh’s
application due to alleged inconsistencies in his
testimony, questioning his credibility. However, the
Ninth Circuit reversed this decision, determining
that the minor inconsistencies cited by the IJ did
not undermine Singh’s credibility. The case was
remanded for further proceedings, underscoring the
importance of substantial evidence in credibility
assessments. This outcome reflects the firm’s
commitment to defending clients facing credibility
challenges in the complex asylum
process.
Full Publication: Full
Publication: The full opinion can be accessed here:
Singh v.
Ashcroft Opinion.