A US federal appeals court has rejected an Indian Muslim man's bid to avoid deportation to India, ruling that the violence he experienced in 2016 did not constitute persecution and that there was no evidence of complicity by Indian authorities. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its ruling this week in the case of Sanaullah Khan Mohammed, an Indian national who overstayed a visitor visa and later sought asylum.

What the Court Ruled

The three-judge panel found that the injuries Mohammed sustained during a May 2016 attack — described as "bumps, scrapes, and bruises" — did not meet the legal threshold for persecution. The court also noted that local Indian police had intervened and dispersed the attackers after Mohammed called for help, undermining his claim of government complicity.

"The bumps, scrapes, and bruises Mohammed received in the May 2016 incident do not compel the conclusion that he suffered persecution," the court said in its ruling. "Nor has Mohammed demonstrated that the Indian government allowed the violence. Indeed, local police stopped the attack," the panel added.

Background: The Slaughterhouse Dispute

According to court records, Mohammed came from a Muslim family in India that operated a slaughterhouse dealing in cow meat. Tensions allegedly arose with local Hindus "who both considered cows sacred and claimed affiliation with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)". Mohammed alleged that in May 2016, a group confronted him and his mother, threw rocks at him, and beat him while demanding closure of the slaughterhouse.

The court further noted that Mohammed's claims of future persecution were weakened by the fact that the slaughterhouse business linked to the dispute was no longer operating. The panel also pointed out that Mohammed had the option to relocate within "the very large country of India".

Immigration Timeline and Legal Hurdles

Mohammed entered the United States on a visitor visa on 26 June 2016 and remained after it expired later that year. He applied for asylum in January 2019 — well beyond the one-year deadline mandated under US immigration law. An immigration judge had earlier rejected his asylum application as untimely and also denied his requests for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

The Seventh Circuit acknowledged it lacked jurisdiction to review the asylum claim due to existing legal precedent governing late applications. However, the judges devoted substantial discussion to the merits of Mohammed's withholding of removal claim, ultimately concluding that the evidence established neither past persecution nor a likely risk of future persecution upon return to India.

Broader Context

The ruling comes amid heightened scrutiny of US immigration courts' handling of asylum claims from South Asian nationals, particularly those citing communal violence. Cases involving claims of religiously motivated persecution in India have drawn increasing attention from immigration lawyers and civil liberties groups, who argue that the threshold for persecution in such cases is applied inconsistently. The Seventh Circuit's decision, however, turns heavily on the specific facts — police intervention, cessation of the triggering business, and India's size as a relocation option — rather than a broader policy stance. The case is now effectively closed at the appellate level.