Asad Muhammad Ashfaq v. Merrick B. Garland

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued January 30, 2024
Decided February 28, 2024
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2114
ASAD MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals.
No. A095-925-171
O R D E R
Asad Ashfaq, a Pakistani citizen, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals denying his applications for immigration relief based on harm he
fears because of his prior participation with a political party, the Mohajir Qaumi
Movement (MQM). For the reasons below, we deny Ashfaq’s petition for review.
Ashfaq, now 47, entered the United States in 1997 on a student F-1 visa. He
attended San Francisco State University for one semester before dropping out because
of financial hardship. He was placed into removal proceedings in 2003, but a woman
claiming to be his wife filed an I-130 immediate relative petition on his behalf. Shortly
after the Immigration and Naturalization Service approved the application (in 2005),
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 23-2114 Page 2
she requested revocation of the visa, stating that the marriage was illegitimate. The
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services revoked Ashfaq’s visa in 2006.
Ashfaq then applied for asylum and withholding of removal under the
Immigration and Nationality Act as well as protection under the United Nations
Convention Against Torture. In his application, Ashfaq recounted his experience
growing up in Karachi, Pakistan, as someone whose family migrated from India and
spoke Urdu. Local politics were dominated by MQM, a political group centered in
Karachi that engaged in violent means of maintaining control. Ashfaq says he
informally joined MQM in 1992, helping to distribute flyers, arrange chairs at meetings,
and serve water to meeting attendees. After MQM splintered into two factions, Ashfaq
testified that he briefly joined one faction before leaving MQM out of frustration with
its unlawful activities. In 1995, he joined the Pakistan People’s Party, which competed
with MQM for support in Karachi.
Because of his wavering commitment to MQM and its later factions, Ashfaq
stated that MQM began threatening him. He attested that MQM members vandalized
his father’s property, threatened his family, and later physically assaulted him.
The immigration judge denied all relief. She concluded that, despite Ashfaq’s
credible testimony, he was not eligible for asylum because his application was
untimely. Because of Ashfaq’s fraudulent marriage, the immigration judge also denied
his application for asylum as a matter of discretion. Next, she ruled that Ashfaq was
ineligible for withholding of removal because he did not suffer harm that rose to the
level of past persecution and, even if he had, it was not on the account of a protected
ground. Nor would future persecution be likely, the immigration judge concluded,
because Ashfaq’s past volunteer role with MQM was relatively minor, and he could
reasonably relocate to an area of Pakistan other than Karachi. Finally, the immigration
judge denied his claim under the Convention Against Torture for lack of proof.
The Board, through a Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge,1 affirmed the
immigration judge’s decision. In response to Ashfaq’s argument that the harm he
experienced did not amount to past persecution or torture, the Board ruled that Ashfaq
waived—by not meaningfully challenging—her rulings about asylum, withholding of
removal based on past persecution, and denial of protection under the Convention
Against Torture. Next, with regard to withholding of removal based on future
1 The Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge sat according to appointment by
the Attorney General. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(1), (4).

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 23-2114 Page 3
persecution, the Board agreed with the immigration judge that, despite Ashfaq’s
asserted fear of retaliation by the Pakistani government, he had not demonstrated a
sufficient risk of future persecution because he last worked with MQM nearly 30 years
ago and he reasonably could avoid harm by relocating to another part of Pakistan.
In his petition for review, Ashfaq rehashes much of his brief submitted to the
Board and does not engage with the Board’s determination that he waived any
challenge to the immigration judge’s rulings regarding asylum, past persecution, and
protection under the Convention. He also raises arguments—for the first time—that the
harm he suffered was severe enough to amount to past persecution and that Pakistan
presently experiences significant political violence, which he says would likely subject
him to future persecution or torture. But a failure to argue an issue in administrative
proceedings results in failure to exhaust, so we may not review the Board’s rulings.
See Barrados-Zarate v. Barr, 981 F.3d 603, 604–05 (7th Cir. 2020); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
The last issue concerns the Board’s determination that he could reasonably
relocate somewhere other than Karachi. By not contesting that determination, Ashfaq
has waived any challenge to it. Munoz-Rivera v. Garland, 81 F.4th 681, 690 (7th Cir. 2023).
Ashfaq’s petition for review is DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --