An Indian Muslim man, Sanaullah Khan Mohammed, who entered the United States in 2016 on a tourist visa and subsequently overstayed, has been denied asylum by the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The judges found no merit in his application, ruling that Mohammed could not be protected from deportation, as India is a large country where he could be resettled elsewhere.
Background of the Case
According to court documents, Mohammed claimed that his family operated a slaughterhouse business in India, which led to tensions. In May 2016, he alleged that a group confronted him and his mother, threw rocks, and beat him, demanding the closure of the slaughterhouse. Local police intervened and dispersed the group, leaving Mohammed with minor injuries.
Approximately one month later, Mohammed entered the US on a visitor visa, remaining beyond its expiration date of December 25, 2016. He did not apply for asylum until January 28, 2019, well past the one-year deadline.
Legal Proceedings
The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied his asylum application as untimely. An immigration judge also rejected the case, stating that Mohammed showed “neither past persecution nor a meaningful risk of future persecution.” Mohammed appealed for review.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted that it lacked jurisdiction to review the untimeliness of the asylum application. However, regarding the issue of 'withholding of removal'—that he should not be deported to India—the court found no reason to prevent deportation.
Court's Reasoning
The court pointed out that local police stopped the 2016 attack, and Mohammed could not demonstrate that “the Indian government allowed the violence.” The injuries he sustained—bumps, scrapes, and bruises—did not compel a conclusion of persecution in India.
“Mohammed’s challenges are even weaker because his family’s local slaughterhouse business that provoked the past violence is no longer in operation. Even more, Mohammed could live somewhere else within the very large country of India,” the court stated.
Thus, the court upheld the denial of his asylum claim and affirmed that deportation to India is permissible.
