Faris v. Bondi: Job Loss, Citizenship Revocation, and Periodic “Check-ins” Do Not Compel a Finding of Persecution; Unbriefed CAT Claims Are Forfeited

1. Introduction

In Faris v. Bondi (5th Cir. Feb. 13, 2026) (per curiam) (unpublished), Waleed Abdulraheem Faris Faris—a Jordan-born man of Palestinian parentage—petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying asylum and withholding of removal and treating his Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim as waived/forfeited.

Faris’s account centered on Jordan’s revocation of his citizenship, resulting employment restrictions, his removal to the border, and a long-term system of periodic reporting (“check-ins”) during which he was questioned, made to wait for hours, and required to sign a commitment not to work. He alleged these measures—combined with economic deprivation and surveillance—amounted to past persecution and supported a fear of future persecution on account of Palestinian nationality.

The key issues before the Fifth Circuit were: (i) whether substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that Faris failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution; (ii) whether the CAT claim was properly rejected as not meaningfully challenged on appeal; and (iii) whether “firm resettlement” in Palestine barred asylum (an issue the court ultimately declined to reach because the BIA did not rely on it).

2. Summary of the Opinion

  • Asylum/withholding: The court denied the petition, holding that the record did not compel a finding of past persecution (or future persecution derived from past persecution). The harms described—though serious—did not reach the Fifth Circuit’s “extreme” threshold for persecution under substantial-evidence review.
  • Nexus not reached: Because the failure to show persecution was dispositive, the court declined to reach the BIA’s alternative point about failure to establish a nexus to a protected ground.
  • CAT: The court held Faris forfeited any challenge to the BIA’s CAT disposition by inadequate briefing.
  • Firm resettlement: The court declined to review the Immigration Judge’s firm-resettlement finding because the BIA did not address or rely on it.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

A. Scope and standards of review

  • Munoz-De Zelaya v. Garland, 80 F.4th 689 (5th Cir. 2023): The court reiterated that it reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) reasoning only to the extent it influenced the BIA. This framing mattered because it limited review of issues and rationales not adopted by the BIA (notably “firm resettlement”).
  • Nivelo Cardenas v. Garland, 70 F.4th 232 (5th Cir. 2023): Provided the split standard: legal conclusions reviewed de novo; fact findings reviewed for substantial evidence, reversible only if the record compels the opposite conclusion. This standard drove the result: even if another factfinder could find persecution, the court would affirm unless compelled to reverse.

B. Definition and threshold of “persecution”

  • Singh v. Barr, 920 F.3d 255 (5th Cir. 2019): Supplied the statutory formulation: persecution or well-founded fear “on account of” a protected ground. The court used this as the gateway framework, though it ultimately resolved the case on the persecution element alone.
  • Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812 (5th Cir. 2017): Provided the Fifth Circuit’s articulation of persecution as government-sanctioned infliction of suffering or harm, including non-physical harm, and identified examples (threats to life, confinement, torture, and economic restrictions so severe they threaten life or freedom). Faris relied heavily on economic and psychological effects; Morales was the yardstick against which those harms were measured.
  • Aben v. Garland, 113 F.4th 457 (5th Cir. 2024): Reinforced that persecution is “an extreme concept” and does not include all unfair or even unlawful treatment. The court invoked this limiting principle to explain why Faris’s described mistreatment—though troubling—did not necessarily rise to persecution.

C. “Compelled conclusion” and comparison cases

  • Gjetani v. Barr, 968 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2020): The court quoted the core substantial-evidence formulation: the petitioner must show the record is “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” This is the decisive appellate posture; Faris’s evidence did not clear that bar.
  • Bing Shun Li v. Holder, 400 F. App'x 854 (5th Cir. 2010): Used as a comparator illustrating that even a combination of job loss, detention, coercive interrogation, and physical abuse can still fail to compel relief on review. By contrasting Faris’s experience (no physical harm) with Bing Shun Li, the court underscored how high the “compelled” threshold is.
  • Rojas v. I.N.S., 937 F.3d 186 (5th Cir. 1991): Another comparator involving arrest, beating, torture, job termination, and inability to find other work—yet still not warranting reversal of the agency. The court cited Rojas to show that even severe mistreatment does not automatically translate into compelled reversal under deferential review.
  • Mikhael v. I.N.S., 115 F3d 299 (5th Cir. 1997): The court relied on Mikhael for the principle that even if a reasonable factfinder could find persecution, reversal is improper unless a factfinder would be compelled to do so. This directly supported affirmance despite arguable sympathy for Faris’s position.

D. Withholding of removal as a higher bar

  • Rubio v. Bondi, 147 F.4th 568 (5th Cir. 2025): The court cited Rubio to confirm withholding imposes a higher standard than asylum; therefore, failure on asylum generally forecloses withholding. Once Faris failed to establish persecution for asylum purposes, withholding necessarily failed.

E. Issue preservation, forfeiture, and limits of review

  • Lopez-Perez v. Garland, 35 F.4th 953 (5th Cir. 2022) and Perez De Molina v. Garland, 2025 WL 80364 (5th Cir. Jan. 13, 2025): These cases supported the court’s holding that Faris forfeited any CAT challenge by failing to brief CAT-specific arguments adequately. In short: an issue mentioned in passing without developed argument is treated as abandoned/forfeited.
  • Alejos-Perez v. Garland, 991 F.3d 642 (5th Cir. 2021) and Luna-Garcia v. Barr, 932 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2019): These cases anchored the court’s refusal to review firm resettlement, because the BIA did not address it. The Fifth Circuit’s review is of the BIA’s decision, not freestanding IJ findings the BIA did not adopt.
  • Bonilla Rivas v. Bondi, 2025 WL 3124838 (5th Cir. Nov. 7, 2025) (citing United States v. Cabello, 33 F.4th 281 (5th Cir. 2022)): The opinion noted that the BIA used the label “waiver,” but the more accurate term was “forfeiture.” This distinction did not change the outcome, but it reflected the Fifth Circuit’s emphasis on precise preservation doctrine: forfeiture is failure to timely assert; waiver is intentional relinquishment.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeded in three linked moves:

  1. Define the governing threshold: Drawing on Morales and Aben, the court emphasized persecution’s “extreme” nature and that economic harm qualifies only when so severe it threatens life or freedom.
  2. Apply deferential review to the facts: Under Nivelo Cardenas and Gjetani, Faris had to show the record compelled a finding of persecution. The court acknowledged the possibility a reasonable factfinder could have found persecution, but—invoking Mikhael—held that was not enough to reverse.
  3. Use comparators to calibrate severity: By comparing Faris’s circumstances to the experiences described in Bing Shun Li and Rojas, the court concluded Faris’s harm fell short of what has previously been insufficient to compel relief—particularly given the absence of physical harm.

Having found no compelled showing of persecution, the court treated asylum as defeated and—per Rubio—withholding necessarily failed. The court also declined to address nexus because persecution was dispositive.

On CAT, the court relied on issue-preservation precedent (Lopez-Perez, Perez De Molina) to hold the challenge forfeited. On firm resettlement, it applied BIA-focused review limits (Alejos-Perez, Luna-Garcia) to decline review entirely.

3.3 Impact

Although the opinion is “not designated for publication” and thus has limited precedential weight under Fifth Circuit rules, it is practically significant in three ways:

  • High bar for “compelled” reversal: The case illustrates how difficult it is to overturn the BIA on persecution findings under substantial-evidence review—even where the applicant shows serious life disruptions (citizenship revocation, job loss, enforced reporting).
  • Economic and psychological harms: The opinion reinforces that economic constraints and psychologically distressing official encounters, without more, may be deemed insufficient—particularly where the evidence does not show life- or freedom-threatening severity.
  • Procedural rigor: The forfeiture holding on CAT and the refusal to reach firm resettlement underscore that petitioners must (i) brief issues with specificity and (ii) target arguments to the BIA’s actual grounds, not IJ findings standing alone.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Persecution
A legal term for severe mistreatment that goes beyond discrimination or unfair treatment. It can be physical or non-physical, but it must be serious—often involving threats to life or freedom, severe confinement, torture, or extreme economic deprivation.
Substantial evidence / “compels” standard
On appeal, the court does not decide the facts from scratch. It asks whether the agency’s view is reasonable. The petitioner must show the evidence is so one-sided that any reasonable factfinder would have to disagree with the BIA.
Nexus
The requirement that the harm be “on account of” a protected ground (such as nationality). Even serious harm is not enough if it is not tied to a protected reason. In this case, the court did not reach nexus because it found no compelled showing of persecution.
Withholding of removal
A related but stricter protection than asylum. If the applicant cannot meet asylum’s persecution showing, withholding typically fails as well.
CAT protection
Protection against being returned to a country where the applicant is likely to be tortured. It is separate from asylum/withholding and must be specifically argued; otherwise, the court can treat it as forfeited.
Forfeiture vs. waiver
“Forfeiture” is losing an argument by failing to raise it properly and timely; “waiver” is giving it up intentionally. The opinion notes the distinction, but either way, inadequate briefing can end the claim.

5. Conclusion

Faris v. Bondi denies relief because the record did not compel a finding that Jordan’s citizenship revocation, job loss, removal to the border, and periodic reporting requirements amounted to “persecution” under Fifth Circuit standards. The decision also serves as a procedural warning: CAT claims must be meaningfully briefed, and courts will not review issues the BIA did not decide. In the Fifth Circuit’s framework, even substantial hardship may be insufficient absent evidence of the “extreme” level of harm required for persecution and absent properly preserved appellate arguments.