19

- 802 Verma v. Garland BIA Nelson , IJ A 208 286 634 

### 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.**

**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 1**  **2 t**  **h d**  **a y of**  **A p**  **r i**  **l ,**  **two thousand twenty** 

**- one** 

**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **ROBERT A. KATZMANN,** 7 **DENNY CHIN,** 8 **MICHAEL H. PARK,** 9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **PANKAJ VERMA ,**  13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15

**v. 19** 

**- 802**  16 **NAC** 17 **MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED**  18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **,** 19 **Respondent**

**.** ***** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Deepti Vithal , Esq. , Richmond 23 Hill , N Y

. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Brian M. Boynton , Assistant 26 Attorney General; Anthony P. 27 Nicastro , Assistant Director ; 28

* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent.2 Vanessa M. Otero , Trial Attorney, 1 Office of Immigration Litigation , 2 United States Depar tment of 3 Justice, Washington, D C. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 8

is DENIED

. 9

Petitioner Pankaj Verm a , a native and citizen of India , 10

seeks review of a March 8 , 201 9 , decision of the BIA 11

affirming a n October 30 , 2017 , decision of an Immigration 12

Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal , and 13

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 14

Pankaj Verma , No. A 208 286 634 (B.I.A. Mar. 8 , 2019 ), aff’g 15

No. A 208 286 634 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 30 , 2017 ). We 16

assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 17

and p rocedural history. 18

We review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the 19

sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 20

Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable 21

standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 22

1252(b)(4)(B); Wei Sun v. Sessions , 883 F.3d 23, 27 (2d 23

Cir. 2018)

. 24

253 Although the agency erred in denying relief for lack of 1

corroboration without first identifying what reasonably 2

available evidence was missing, giving Verma a chance to 3

explain its absence, and evaluating his explanation s , see 4

Wei Sun , 883 F.3d at 31, we d eny the petition based on the 5

agency’s independent and dispositive determination that 6

Verma could relocate within India, see Gurung v

. Barr , 929 7

F.3d 56, 62 (2d Cir. 2019) ( providing that remand is futile 8

“when the IJ articulates an alternative and suffici ent 9

basis for her determination” ( citation omitted) )

. 10

An asylum applicant does not have a well

- founded fear 11

of future persecution if he can reasonably relocate within 12

his own country to avoid harm. See 8 C.F.R. 13

§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), (2)(ii); † see also Singh v. BIA , 435 14

F.3d 216, 219 (2d Cir. 2006) (“Asylum in the United States 15

is not available to obviate re

- location to sanctuary in 16

one’s own country.”). While the parties disagree as to who 17

bore the burden of p roving the reasonableness of relocation 18

in this case, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3), we need not 19

resolve the dispute because the record supports the 20

agency’s finding that relocation was reasonable . The 21

† Citations are to the version of the regulations in effect from July 2013 to November 2018.4 country conditions evidence thoroughly describes serious 1

human rights issues in India, but it does not describe 2

ongoing or widespread political violence apart from one 3

state (P unjab ) and mentions only isolated incidents of 4

violence surrounding the 2 014 elections . This evidence 5

thus supports the conclusion that Verma could relocate to 6

another state to avoid the six local members of the 7

Bharatiya Janata Party who attacked him in his home state 8

of Haryana

. Accordingly, the agency’s finding that Verma 9

does not have a well

- founded fear of persecution based on 10

his ability to safely relocate was reasonable and 11

dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 12

relief

. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), (2)(ii), 13

1208.16(c)(3); see also Paul v. Gonzal es , 444 F.3d 148, 14

156

– 57 (2d Cir. 2006). 15

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 16

DENIED . All pending motions and applications are DENIED 17

and stays VACATED. 18

FOR THE COURT: 19 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 20 Clerk of Court 21