Sharma

Sharma v. Gonzales

Good Law
127 F. App'x 239
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 9, 2005No. 03-70953California321 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Reginald Sharma, his brother Ronald Sharma, his brother’s wife Sagita Lau and their minor daughter, Priyanka Sharma (“the Sharmas”), are natives and citizens of Fiji of Indian descent. They petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their applications for asylum. Because the BIA summarily affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), we review the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA. Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 887 (9th Cir.2001).

The Sharmas contend that they are eligible for asylum on the basis of a pattern or practice of persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13 (b)(2)(iii). The government responds that we lack jurisdiction over the Sharmas’ “pattern or practice” claim because they failed to exhaust it before the BIA. Alternatively, the government contends that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that the Sharmas lack both a subjectively genuine and an objectively reasonable fear of persecution, even taking into consideration the evidence they offer regarding pattern and practice.

We reject the government’s jurisdictional argument. Although the Sharmas did not use the precise term…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.