Filed: Oct. 22, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 09-4792-ag Patel v. Holder BIA Burr, IJ A098 225 595 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NO
Summary: 09-4792-ag Patel v. Holder BIA Burr, IJ A098 225 595 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOT..
More
09-4792-ag
Patel v. Holder
BIA
Burr, IJ
A098 225 595
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 22nd day of October, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
8 GUIDO CALABRESI,
9 PETER W. HALL,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 CHIRAG RAMESHKUMAR PATEL,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 09-4792-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY
19 GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gopal T. Kukreja, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,
28 Assistant Director; M. Lee Quinn,
29 Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Chirag Rameshkumar Patel, a native and citizen of
6 India, seeks review of an October 23, 2009, order of the BIA
7 affirming the January 22, 2008, decision of Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) Sarah M. Burr, which denied his application for
9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Chirag
11 Rameshkumar Patel, No. A098 225 595 (B.I.A. Oct. 23, 2009),
12 aff’g No. A098 225 595 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 22, 2008).
13 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history in this case.
15 Patel challenges the agency’s denial of his application
16 for asylum. Under the circumstances of this case, we review
17 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s decision.
18 See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005).
19 The applicable standards of review are well established.
20 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t
21 of Homeland Sec.,
494 F.3d 281, 289 (2d Cir. 2007).
22 I. Past Persecution
2
1 We find no error in the agency’s determination that
2 Patel failed to demonstrate that he suffered any harm in
3 India rising to the level of persecution. The majority of
4 the harm Patel described pertained only to his father, and,
5 thus, was inadequate to establish persecution of Patel
6 personally. See Tao Jiang v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 137, 141
7 (2d Cir. 2007) (“As a general principle, an asylum applicant
8 cannot claim past persecution based solely on harm that was
9 inflicted on a family member on account of that family
10 member’s political opinion or other protected
11 characteristic”). Moreover, the agency reasonably
12 determined that any harm suffered by Patel personally, such
13 as having his lunch box stolen and getting involved in
14 school yard brawls, was more akin to harassment than
15 persecution. See Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433
16 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir. 2006) (explaining that, in order to
17 constitute persecution, the alleged harm must be
18 sufficiently severe, rising above “mere harassment”).
19 II. Well-Founded Fear of Persecution
20 We also find no error in the agency’s determination
21 that Patel failed to establish that his fear of future
22 persecution was objectively reasonable. See Ramsameachire
3
1 v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). The agency
2 reasonably determined that the fact that Patel’s father
3 voluntarily returned to India from abroad, and resumed his
4 political activities without suffering any significant harm,
5 diminished the objective reasonableness of Patel’s fear of
6 future persecution. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno,
191 F.3d
7 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999); Lie v. Ashcroft,
396 F.3d 530, 537
8 (3d Cir. 2005) (finding that the agency may consider an
9 applicant’s claim of a well-founded fear of persecution
10 diminished where similarly-situated family members remain in
11 his or her native country unharmed).
12 Furthermore, contrary to Patel’s argument, the record
13 supports the agency’s finding that no pattern or practice of
14 persecution of Hindus exists in India, as the 2003 and 2007
15 State Department International Religious Freedom Reports
16 indicate that Hindus comprise 80.5 percent of India’s
17 population, and that it is Hindu extremist groups that have
18 been implicated in religious violence against the Christian
19 and Muslim minorities. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13(b)(2),
20 208.16(b)(2); Mufied v. Mukasey,
508 F.3d 88, 91 (2d Cir.
21 2007). Patel does not challenge the agency’s denial of
22 either withholding of removal or CAT relief.
4
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
3 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
4 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
5 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
6 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
7 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
8 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
12
13
5
