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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 

2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

21st 4 day of August, two thousand seventeen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 

9 DENNY CHIN,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 UMER GHANI, 

14 

15 Petitioner, 

16 

17 v. 16-992 

18 NAC 

19 

20 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, UNITED 

21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

22 

23 Respondent. 

24 _____________________________________ 

25 

26 FOR PETITIONER: Andrew P. Johnson, New York, NY. 

27 

28 FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce R. Branda, Principal Deputy 
2 

1 Assistant Attorney General; John S. 

2 Hogan, Assistant Director; Robbin K. 

3 Blaya, Office of Immigration 

4 Litigation, United States 

5 Department of Justice, Washington, 

6 DC. 

7 

8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

11 DENIED. 

12 Petitioner Umer Ghani, a native and citizen of Pakistan, 

13 seeks review of a March 15, 2016, decision of the BIA, affirming 

14 a November 20, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 

15 denying Ghani’s application for withholding of removal and 

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

17 Umer Ghani, No. A095 515 847 (B.I.A. Mar. 15, 2016), aff’g No. 

18 A095 515 847 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 20, 2014). We assume 

19 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 

20 procedural history in this case. 

21 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for 

22 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 

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

24 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 
3 

1 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d 

2 Cir. 2009). 

3 Ghani does not allege past persecution and seeks relief 

4 based on his fear of future persecution. “To establish 

5 eligibility for withholding of removal, an applicant must show 

6 that it is more likely than not that” he will be persecuted and 

7 that such persecution will be on account of a protected ground. 

8 Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332–33 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting 

9 8 C.F.R § 1208.16(b)). An applicant can either “provide 

10 evidence that he . . . would be singled out individually for 

11 . . . persecution” or establish “a pattern or practice of 

12 persecution of a group of persons similarly situated.” 8 

13 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2). 

14 We conclude that substantial evidence supports the 

15 agency’s determination that Ghani failed to establish that it 

16 was more likely than not that he will be persecuted in Pakistan. 

17 Ghani fears persecution at the hands of the Taliban because, 

18 as he alleges, in 2008, the Taliban kidnapped his brother and 

19 cousin for ransom; his nephew visiting from England was killed 

20 in a suicide attack in Pakistan on an unknown date; and the 

21 Taliban sent him a threatening letter in 2008. Ghani testified 
4 

1 that the Taliban targeted his family because they are wealthy, 

2 and that 95 percent of his home region faces problem with the 

3 Taliban because the Swat Valley is one of the most dangerous 

4 regions in Pakistan. But dangerous conditions are not a basis 

5 for withholding. See Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70, 73 

6 (2d Cir. 2007) (“When the harm visited upon members of a group 

7 is attributable to the incentives presented to ordinary 

8 criminals rather than to persecution, the scales are tipped away 

9 from considering those people a ‘particular social group’”). 

10 Moreover, apart from these incidents, Ghani’s family has 

11 resided in Pakistan unharmed, see Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 

12 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999) (finding future fear diminished 

13 when similarly situated family members are able to live unharmed 

14 in asylum applicant’s native country), and the threat directed 

15 at Ghani is nearly a decade old and has not been repeated or 

16 referred to since 2008. 

17 Accordingly, because Ghani failed to demonstrate a 

18 likelihood of harm, he failed to establish his eligibility for 

19 withholding of removal. Because this ruling is dispositive, 

20 we do not reach Ghani’s arguments that the agency erred in 

21 failing to address whether any harm would be on account of 
5 

1 imputed religious beliefs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 

2 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not 

3 required to make findings on issues the decision of which is 

4 unnecessary to the results they reach.”). The agency’s 

5 conclusion that Ghani failed to establish that he was more 

6 likely than not to suffer persecution necessarily precluded his 

7 claim for CAT relief because that claim is based on the same 

8 factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-57 

9 (2d Cir. 2006). 

10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

11 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion 

12 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 

13 FOR THE COURT: 

14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk