SINGH v. BARR (2020)

SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Keron Partap Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a September 11, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a December 6, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Singh's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Keron Partap Singh, No. A XXX XX3 224 (B.I.A. Sept. 11, 2017), aff'g No. A XXX XX3 224 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 6, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We have reviewed both the BIA's and the IJ's decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). Because the agency made an alternate finding that even assuming credibility, Singh did not establish his eligibility for asylum, and because Singh does not substantively challenge the agency's determination that his past harm did not rise to the level of persecution, our analysis is confined to the agency's finding that assuming credibility, Singh did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25, 97 S.Ct. 200, 50 L.Ed.2d 190 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”); Norton v. Sam's Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998) (“Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal.”). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

Singh has not challenged the agency's finding that he could internally relocate within India to avoid future persecution. An applicant has not established a well-founded fear of future persecution “if [he] could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of [his] country of nationality ․ if under all the circumstances it would be reasonable to expect [him] to do so.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(3)(i) (when an applicant has not established past persecution, he has the burden to establish that internal relocation would be unreasonable), 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B), (c)(3)(ii) (applying the same limitation to withholding of removal and CAT relief). An applicant's “ability to relocate safely constitutes a ground, in and of itself, on which an IJ's denial of [relief] may be based.” Steevenez v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 114, 117–18 (2d Cir. 2007). Because Singh did not challenge this dispositive finding, he has waived the issue. See Norton, 145 F.3d at 117. Additionally, to the extent that Singh argues in his brief that he will be at risk of persecution throughout India, he references only general country conditions, none specific to Sikhs or members of the Shiromani Akali Dal Mann. Accordingly, his argument is insufficient to show that he cannot relocate, because it does not demonstrate that he has a well-founded fear that he would be singled out for harm on a protected ground or that there is a pattern or practice of persecution of Sikhs or the Shiromani Akali Dal Mann. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2); Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that applicant who fails to meet burden for asylum “necessarily” fails to meet higher burden for withholding of removal and CAT relief).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.