Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

10-1932 Moosa v. Holder

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//May 5, 2011//

10-1932 Moosa v. Holder

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//May 5, 2011//

Listen to this article

Immigration
Asylum; Pakistan

Being a single Westernized woman is not a sufficient reason to obtain asylum when facing removal to Pakistan.

“The reasons cited by the Board and its conclusions are consistent with our repeated reminder that ‘general conditions of hardship that affect entire populations . . . are not persecution.’ Ahmed v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 669, 673 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Sharif v. INS, 87 F.3d 932, 935 (7th Cir. 1996) (‘[H]arsh conditions shared by an entire population do not amount to persecution. Nor does punishment which results from violating a country’s laws of general applicability, absent some showing that the punishment is being administered for a nefarious purpose.’). On a different, more particularized record, the Board may well come to the opposite conclusion. We are obviously not saying that genuine problems do not exist for women like Moosa. But the responsibility for drawing lines here lies primarily with the Board, which can act only on the facts put before it.”

Petition Denied.

10-1932 Moosa v. Holder

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Wood, J.

Full Text

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

Case Digests

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests