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 

New York, on the 12th 4 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.
2

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
3

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.
4

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