16-992 Ghani v. Sessions BIA Poczter, IJ A095 515 847 

### 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 for**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **21 st**  **day of August, two thousand seventeen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 8 **DENNY CHIN,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **UMER GHANI,** 13 14 Petitioner **,** 15 16 **v. 16-992** 17 **NAC** 18 19 **JEFFERSON B.**  **SESSIONS, III,**  **UNITED** 20 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 21 22 Respondent **.** 23

**_____________________________________** 24 25 **FOR PETITIONER:** Andrew P. Johnson, New York, NY. 26 27 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joyce R. Branda, Principal Deputy 282 Assistant Attorney General; John S. 1 Hogan, Assistant Director; Robbin K. 2 Blaya, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 10

DENIED. 11 Petitioner Umer Ghani, a native and citizen of Pakistan, 12 seeks review of a March 15, 2016, decision of the BIA, affirming 13 a November 20, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 14 denying Ghani’s application for withholding of removal and 15 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 16 Umer Ghani, No. A095 515 847 (B.I.A. Mar. 15, 2016), aff’g No. 17 A095 515 847 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 20, 2014). We assume 18 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 19 procedural history in this case. 20

We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for 21 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 22
Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable 23 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 243 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d 1 Cir. 2009). 2 Ghani does not allege past persecution and seeks relief 3 based on his fear of future persecution. “To establish 4 eligibility for withholding of removal, an applicant must show 5 that it is more likely than not that” he will be persecuted and 6 that such persecution will be on account of a protected ground. 7 Y.C. v. Holder , 741 F.3d 324, 332–33 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 8 C.F.R § 1208.16(b)). An applicant can either “provide 9 evidence that he . . . would be singled out individually for 10 . . . persecution” or establish “a pattern or practice of 11 persecution of a group of persons similarly situated.” 8 12 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2). 13 We conclude that substantial evidence supports the 14 agency’s determination that Ghani failed to establish that it 15 was more likely than not that he will be persecuted in Pakistan. 16 Ghani fears persecution at the hands of the Taliban because, 17 as he alleges, in 2008, the Taliban kidnapped his brother and 18 cousin for ransom; his nephew visiting from England was killed 19 in a suicide attack in Pakistan on an unknown date; and the 20 Taliban sent him a threatening letter in 2008. Ghani testified 214 that the Taliban targeted his family because they are wealthy, 1 and that 95 percent of his home region faces problem with the 2 Taliban because the Swat Valley is one of the most dangerous 3 regions in Pakistan. But dangerous conditions are not a basis 4 for withholding. See Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey , 509 F.3d 70, 73 5 (2d Cir. 2007) (“When the harm visited upon members of a group 6 is attributable to the incentives presented to ordinary 7 criminals rather than to persecution, the scales are tipped away 8 from considering those people a ‘particular social group’”). 9 Moreover, apart from these incidents, Ghani’s family has 10 resided in Pakistan unharmed, see Melgar de Torres v. Reno , 191 11 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999) (finding future fear diminished 12 when similarly situated family members are able to live unharmed 13 in asylum applicant’s native country), and the threat directed 14 at Ghani is nearly a decade old and has not been repeated or 15 referred to since 2008. 16 Accordingly, because Ghani failed to demonstrate a 17 likelihood of harm, he failed to establish his eligibility for 18 withholding of removal. Because this ruling is dispositive, 19 we do not reach Ghani’s arguments that the agency erred in 20 failing to address whether any harm would be on account of 215 imputed religious beliefs. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 1 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not 2 required to make findings on issues the decision of which is 3 unnecessary to the results they reach.”). The agency’s 4 conclusion that Ghani failed to establish that he was more 5 likely than not to suffer persecution necessarily precluded his 6 claim for CAT relief because that claim is based on the same 7 factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 8 (2d Cir. 2006). 9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion 11 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 12
FOR THE COURT: 13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 14