## Facts

- A 21-year-old native and citizen of India, a Sikh from Punjab, sought asylum and withholding in exclusion proceedings.
- He claimed past persecution and fear of future persecution based on religion (Sikh) and actual or imputed political opinion.
- Sikh militants pressured him to join their separatist effort; when he refused, they beat and threatened him.
- Indian police physically mistreated him during interrogations aimed at obtaining information about Sikh militants.
- An Immigration Judge found him excludable for lacking required entry documents and denied asylum and withholding, ordering exclusion and deportation.
- He appealed the denial of asylum and withholding to the Board of Immigration Appeals and requested oral argument.

## Issues

1. Whether beatings and threats by Sikh militants to coerce recruitment constitute persecution “on account of” political opinion or another protected ground.
2. Whether police mistreatment during an investigation into Sikh militancy constitutes persecution “on account of” religion or actual or imputed political opinion.
3. Whether fear tied to conditions in Punjab establishes a well-founded fear of persecution in India as a whole.
4. Whether asylum should be granted as a matter of discretion even if past persecution in Punjab is assumed.

## Decision

- The Board dismissed the appeal and denied asylum and withholding of exclusion and deportation.
- The Board denied the request for oral argument.
- Harm from militants tied to resisting recruitment did not establish persecution on account of political opinion or any other protected ground.
- Police mistreatment during interrogation did not establish eligibility where the purpose was to obtain information about militants, not to punish him for political opinion or because he was Sikh.
- The applicant did not show countrywide persecution of Sikhs or a nationwide threat to him; thus, he did not establish a well-founded fear in India.
- Even assuming past persecution in Punjab, asylum was denied in the exercise of discretion absent a countrywide threat.

## Legal Principles

- Eligibility for asylum and withholding requires a nexus between the feared harm and a protected ground; coercive recruitment by non-state actors, without evidence of protected-ground motive, is insufficient.
- Abusive police conduct during security investigations does not establish persecution on a protected ground when the motivating purpose is information-gathering about insurgency rather than punishment based on religion or political opinion.
- A localized risk does not establish a well-founded fear when the applicant fails to show a countrywide threat or inability to avoid harm through relocation within the country.
- Asylum is discretionary; even if past persecution is assumed, the absence of an ongoing or countrywide threat may warrant discretionary denial.

## Conclusion

The Board denied asylum and withholding because the applicant did not prove that harm by militants or police was inflicted on account of a protected ground, failed to show a countrywide risk in India, and did not warrant discretionary asylum even assuming past persecution in Punjab.


Matter of R-, 20 I. & N. Dec. 621 (B.I.A. 1992)