Jurisdictional Authority-Sufficiency of Evidence

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Sanaullah Mohammed v. Todd W. Blanche

Case No.: 25-1901

Officials: Scudder, Jackson-Akiwumi, and Pryor, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Jurisdictional Authority-Sufficiency of Evidence

Mohammed, a Muslim citizen of India, operated a family-owned slaughterhouse business that became the subject of hostility from local Hindus associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party, who regarded cows as sacred animals. In May 2016, the petitioner and his mother were assaulted by a group demanding that the slaughterhouse cease operations. The incident resulted in minor injuries and prompted police involvement. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner entered the United States on a visitor visa but remained beyond the period authorized by his visa. Although he later sought asylum, he did not file his application until January 2019, more than one year after his arrival in the United States.

After the application was filed, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services determined that it was untimely under the applicable statutory deadline. Removal proceedings subsequently commenced, and the immigration judge concluded that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances excusing the delayed filing. Accordingly, the immigration judge denied the asylum application as untimely. The immigration judge also denied the petitioner’s requests for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, finding insufficient evidence to establish either past persecution or a likelihood of future persecution or torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge’s rulings and dismissed the petitioner’s appeal.

The Seventh Circuit determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the determination that the asylum application was untimely. Relying on existing circuit precedent, the court explained that the petitioner had failed to raise a legal or constitutional challenge to the timeliness determination and instead contested only factual findings, which were outside the court’s jurisdictional authority to review. With respect to the withholding-of-removal claim, the court applied the substantial-evidence standard and concluded that the record did not compel a finding of either past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution. In reaching that conclusion, the court emphasized the relatively limited nature of the harm suffered, the absence of evidence demonstrating government involvement or acquiescence, and the petitioner’s ability to relocate elsewhere within India. The court therefore dismissed the petition as far as it challenged the denial of asylum and denied the petition in all other respects.

Dismissed.

Decided 05/05/26

Full Text