Singh v. Barr BIA Loprest, IJ A206 443 224

17-3216
Singh v. Barr
BIA
Loprest, IJ
A206 443 224
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.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 1
for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 2
United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 3
New York, on the 22
nd
day of January, two thousand twenty. 4
5
PRESENT: 6
RICHARD C. WESLEY, 7
PETER W. HALL, 8
DENNY CHIN, 9
Circuit Judges. 10
_____________________________________ 11
12
KERON PARTAP SINGH, 13
Petitioner, 14
15
v. 17-3216 16
NAC 17
WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 18
ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19
Respondent. 20
_____________________________________ 21
22
FOR PETITIONER: Richard W. Chen, New York, NY. 23
24
FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 25
General; Daniel E. Goldman, Senior 26
Litigation Counsel; Andrea N. 27
Gevas, Trial Attorney, Office of 28

2

Immigration Litigation, United 1
States Department of Justice, 2
Washington, DC. 3
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 4
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 5
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 6
is DENIED. 7
Petitioner Keron Partap Singh, a native and citizen of 8
India, seeks review of a September 11, 2017, decision of the 9
BIA affirming a December 6, 2016, decision of an Immigration 10
Judge (“IJ”) denying Singh’s application for asylum, 11
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 12
Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Keron Partap Singh, No. A 206 13
443 224 (B.I.A. Sept. 11, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 443 224 14
(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 6, 2016). We assume the parties’ 15
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 16
in this case. 17
We have reviewed both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions. 18
See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 19
2005). Because the agency made an alternate finding that 20
even assuming credibility, Singh did not establish his 21
eligibility for asylum, and because Singh does not 22

3

substantively challenge the agency’s determination that his 1
past harm did not rise to the level of persecution, our 2
analysis is confined to the agency’s finding that assuming 3
credibility, Singh did not establish a well-founded fear of 4
future persecution. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 5
(1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not 6
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is 7
unnecessary to the results they reach.”); Norton v. Sam’s 8
Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998) (“Issues not 9
sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and 10
normally will not be addressed on appeal.”). The applicable 11
standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 12
§ 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d 13
Cir. 2009). 14
Singh has not challenged the agency’s finding that he 15
could internally relocate within India to avoid future 16
persecution. An applicant has not established a well-founded 17
fear of future persecution “if [he] could avoid persecution 18
by relocating to another part of [his] country of nationality 19
. . . if under all the circumstances it would be reasonable 20
to expect [him] to do so.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii); see 21

4

also 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(3)(i) (when an applicant has not 1
established past persecution, he has the burden to establish 2
that internal relocation would be unreasonable), 3
1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B), (c)(3)(ii) (applying the same limitation 4
to withholding of removal and CAT relief). An applicant’s 5
“ability to relocate safely constitutes a ground, in and of 6
itself, on which an IJ’s denial of [relief] may be based.” 7
Steevenez v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 114, 117–18 (2d Cir. 2007). 8
Because Singh did not challenge this dispositive finding, he 9
has waived the issue. See Norton, 145 F.3d at 117. 10
Additionally, to the extent that Singh argues in his brief 11
that he will be at risk of persecution throughout India, he 12
references only general country conditions, none specific to 13
Sikhs or members of the Shiromani Akali Dal Mann. 14
Accordingly, his argument is insufficient to show that he 15
cannot relocate, because it does not demonstrate that he has 16
a well-founded fear that he would be singled out for harm on 17
a protected ground or that there is a pattern or practice of 18
persecution of Sikhs or the Shiromani Akali Dal Mann. See 8 19
C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2); Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119–20
20 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that applicant who fails to meet 21

5

burden for asylum “necessarily” fails to meet higher burden 1
for withholding of removal and CAT relief). 2
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 3
DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 4
stays VACATED. 5
FOR THE COURT: 6
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 7
Clerk of Court 8