Filed: Aug. 21, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 16-992 Ghani v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A095 515 847 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 N
Summary: 16-992 Ghani v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A095 515 847 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..
More
16-992
Ghani v. Sessions
BIA
Poczter, IJ
A095 515 847
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 TO 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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 21st day of August, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 UMER GHANI,
14
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 16-992
18 NAC
19
20 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, UNITED
21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22
23 Respondent.
24 _____________________________________
25
26 FOR PETITIONER: Andrew P. Johnson, New York, NY.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Principal Deputy
1 Assistant Attorney General; John S.
2 Hogan, Assistant Director; Robbin K.
3 Blaya, Office of Immigration
4 Litigation, United States
5 Department of Justice, Washington,
6 DC.
7
8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
11 DENIED.
12 Petitioner Umer Ghani, a native and citizen of Pakistan,
13 seeks review of a March 15, 2016, decision of the BIA, affirming
14 a November 20, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
15 denying Ghani’s application for withholding of removal and
16 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
17 Umer Ghani, No. A095 515 847 (B.I.A. Mar. 15, 2016), aff’g No.
18 A095 515 847 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 20, 2014). We assume
19 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
20 procedural history in this case.
21 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for
22 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland
23 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable
24 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C.
2
1 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d
2 Cir. 2009).
3 Ghani does not allege past persecution and seeks relief
4 based on his fear of future persecution. “To establish
5 eligibility for withholding of removal, an applicant must show
6 that it is more likely than not that” he will be persecuted and
7 that such persecution will be on account of a protected ground.
8 Y.C. v. Holder,
741 F.3d 324, 332–33 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting
9 8 C.F.R § 1208.16(b)). An applicant can either “provide
10 evidence that he . . . would be singled out individually for
11 . . . persecution” or establish “a pattern or practice of
12 persecution of a group of persons similarly situated.” 8
13 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2).
14 We conclude that substantial evidence supports the
15 agency’s determination that Ghani failed to establish that it
16 was more likely than not that he will be persecuted in Pakistan.
17 Ghani fears persecution at the hands of the Taliban because,
18 as he alleges, in 2008, the Taliban kidnapped his brother and
19 cousin for ransom; his nephew visiting from England was killed
20 in a suicide attack in Pakistan on an unknown date; and the
21 Taliban sent him a threatening letter in 2008. Ghani testified
3
1 that the Taliban targeted his family because they are wealthy,
2 and that 95 percent of his home region faces problem with the
3 Taliban because the Swat Valley is one of the most dangerous
4 regions in Pakistan. But dangerous conditions are not a basis
5 for withholding. See Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70, 73
6 (2d Cir. 2007) (“When the harm visited upon members of a group
7 is attributable to the incentives presented to ordinary
8 criminals rather than to persecution, the scales are tipped away
9 from considering those people a ‘particular social group’”).
10 Moreover, apart from these incidents, Ghani’s family has
11 resided in Pakistan unharmed, see Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191
12 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999) (finding future fear diminished
13 when similarly situated family members are able to live unharmed
14 in asylum applicant’s native country), and the threat directed
15 at Ghani is nearly a decade old and has not been repeated or
16 referred to since 2008.
17 Accordingly, because Ghani failed to demonstrate a
18 likelihood of harm, he failed to establish his eligibility for
19 withholding of removal. Because this ruling is dispositive,
20 we do not reach Ghani’s arguments that the agency erred in
21 failing to address whether any harm would be on account of
4
1 imputed religious beliefs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24,
2 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not
3 required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
4 unnecessary to the results they reach.”). The agency’s
5 conclusion that Ghani failed to establish that he was more
6 likely than not to suffer persecution necessarily precluded his
7 claim for CAT relief because that claim is based on the same
8 factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156-57
9 (2d Cir. 2006).
10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
11 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion
12 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
