Kaur

BACKGROUND

The petitioners were before this court in Cheema v. Ash- croft, 383 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2004), which describes the lengthy immigration proceedings involving this couple and the government’s allegations that they engaged in terrorist activity. We held that “the Board erred in determining whether Cheema was ‘a danger to the security of the United States,’ ” and we remanded for determination under the cor- rect legal standard. Id. at 859. We affirmed denial of Chee- ma’s claim under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Because we were “compelled to conclude that there is no evi- dence that Kaur engaged in terrorist activity,” id., her case was remanded for the Attorney General to exercise his discre- 1 Because deportation proceedings began before April 1, 1997, the with- holding claim is for withholding of deportation under former 8 U.S.C. § 1253(h) rather than withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). 3914 KAUR v. HOLDER tion as to her asylum claim. We granted Kaur’s petitions for withholding of deportation and relief under CAT.

On remand, the BIA took into account evidence classified as “secret” that was presented to the IJ in the…