Verma v. Garland

19-802
Verma v. Garland
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A208 286 634
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
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 12th day of April, two thousand twenty-one.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 DENNY CHIN,
9 MICHAEL H. PARK,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 PANKAJ VERMA,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 19-802
17 NAC
18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.*
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Deepti Vithal, Esq., Richmond
24 Hill, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Assistant
27 Attorney General; Anthony P.
28 Nicastro, Assistant Director;
*
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney
General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent.
1 Vanessa M. Otero, Trial Attorney,
2 Office of Immigration Litigation,
3 United States Department of
4 Justice, Washington, DC.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioner Pankaj Verma, a native and citizen of India,
11 seeks review of a March 8, 2019, decision of the BIA
12 affirming an October 30, 2017, decision of an Immigration
13 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and
14 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
15 Pankaj Verma, No. A208 286 634 (B.I.A. Mar. 8, 2019), aff’g
16 No. A208 286 634 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 30, 2017). We
17 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
18 and procedural history.
19 We review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the
20 sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland
21 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable
22 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. §
23 1252(b)(4)(B); Wei Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23, 27 (2d
24 Cir. 2018).
25
2
1 Although the agency erred in denying relief for lack of
2 corroboration without first identifying what reasonably
3 available evidence was missing, giving Verma a chance to
4 explain its absence, and evaluating his explanations, see
5 Wei Sun, 883 F.3d at 31, we deny the petition based on the
6 agency’s independent and dispositive determination that
7 Verma could relocate within India, see Gurung v. Barr, 929
8 F.3d 56, 62 (2d Cir. 2019) (providing that remand is futile
9 “when the IJ articulates an alternative and sufficient
10 basis for her determination” (citation omitted)).
11 An asylum applicant does not have a well-founded fear
12 of future persecution if he can reasonably relocate within
13 his own country to avoid harm. See 8 C.F.R.
14 § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), (2)(ii);† see also Singh v. BIA, 435
15 F.3d 216, 219 (2d Cir. 2006) (“Asylum in the United States
16 is not available to obviate re-location to sanctuary in
17 one’s own country.”). While the parties disagree as to who
18 bore the burden of proving the reasonableness of relocation
19 in this case, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3), we need not
20 resolve the dispute because the record supports the
21 agency’s finding that relocation was reasonable. The
† Citations are to the version of the regulations in effect from
July 2013 to November 2018.
3
1 country conditions evidence thoroughly describes serious
2 human rights issues in India, but it does not describe
3 ongoing or widespread political violence apart from one
4 state (Punjab) and mentions only isolated incidents of
5 violence surrounding the 2014 elections. This evidence
6 thus supports the conclusion that Verma could relocate to
7 another state to avoid the six local members of the
8 Bharatiya Janata Party who attacked him in his home state
9 of Haryana. Accordingly, the agency’s finding that Verma
10 does not have a well-founded fear of persecution based on
11 his ability to safely relocate was reasonable and
12 dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
13 relief. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), (2)(ii),
14 1208.16(c)(3); see also Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,
15 156–57 (2d Cir. 2006).
16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
17 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED
18 and stays VACATED.
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
21 Clerk of Court
4