11-4963 Shabbir v. Holder BIA Reid, IJ A088 938 582 

### 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 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 United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 8 th** **day of April, two thousand thirteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,** 7 **DENNY CHIN,** 8 **SUSAN L. CARNEY,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**______________________________________** 11 12 **IRFAN SHABBIR, AKA IRFAN SHABBIR MALIK,** 13 **AKA ALI SHAH-SYED, AKA IRFAN SHABEER,** 14 Petitioner**,** 15 16 **v. 11-4963** 17 **NAC** 18 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 19 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 Respondent **.** ***** 21

**_______________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER: Mitchell C. Zwaik, Zwaik, Gilbert &** 24 **Associates, P.C., Ronkonkoma, NY.** 25

*The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption to conform to the above.**FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant** 1 **Attorney General; Keith L. McManus,** 2 **Senior Litigation Counsel; Michele** 3 **Y.F. Sarko, Attorney, Office of** 4 **Immigration Litigation, United** 5 **States Department of Justice,** 6 **Washington, D.C.** 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 11 is DENIED. 12 Irfan Shabbir, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks 13 review of an October 31, 2011, decision of the BIA affirming 14 the December 9, 2010, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 15 John B. Reid, which denied his application for asylum, 16 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 17 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Irfan Shabbir, No. A088 938 18 582 (B.I.A. Oct. 31, 2011),aff’gNo. A088 938 582 (Immig. 19 Ct. Batavia Dec. 9, 2010). We assume the parties’ 20 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 21 in this case. 22 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both 23 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 24 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 25 2008)(quotation omitted). The applicable standards of 26

2review are well-established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see 1 also Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 2 2008) (per curiam). 3 For asylum applications, such as Shabbir’s, governed by 4 the amendments made to the Immigration and Nationality Act 5 by the REAL ID Act of 2005, the agency may, considering the 6 totality of the circumstances, base a credibility finding on 7 the internal consistency of the applicant’s account, and the 8 consistency of such statements with other record evidence, 9 without regard to whether an inconsistency or inaccuracy 10 “goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C. 11 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 165. 12 Here, substantial evidence supports the agency’s 13 adverse credibility determination, given Shabbir’s 14 misrepresentations in his Canadian refugee proceedings, his 15 internally contradictory testimony about an alleged incident 16 in 2001, and a material omission in his asylum application - 17 that he was beaten and tortured while in medical college

. 18 See Xiu Xia Lin, 534 F.3d at 167. Shabbir’s explanation for 19 his misrepresentations in his Canadian proceedings – he was 20 advised that it would make his application more successful - 21 would not compel a reasonable fact-finder to credit his 22

3testimony, see Majidi v. Gonzales , 430 F.3d 77, 80-81 (2d 1 Cir. 2005), especially given his failure to meaningfully 2 contest the other bases of the adverse credibility 3 determination, see Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 4 541 n. 1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). 5 The agency also reasonably found that Shabbir failed to 6 establish a pattern or practice of persecution of members of 7 prominent Shia families by Sunni extremists in Pakistan. 8 Initially, we may review Shabbir’s pattern or practice claim 9 because it is subsidiary to his claims raised before the 10
agency. See Gill v. INS, 420 F.3d 82, 86-87 (2d Cir. 2005). 11 The agency reasonably determined that the late-filed copies 12 of letters written by Pakistani officials indicating that 13 his father was on a “hit list” of Sunni extremists were not 14 persuasive evidence supporting his pattern or practice of 15 persecution claim because they did not mention him 16 specifically and because his father remained in Pakistan 17 unharmed. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 18 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006) ; Melgar de Torres v. Reno , 191 19 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999). 20 Moreover, the BIA reasonably determined that while some 21 background evidence indicated the existence of sectarian 22 violence in Pakistan, including violence against Shia 23

4Muslims by extremist Sunni Muslims, the evidence also 1 indicated that the violence was insufficiently widespread to 2 conclude that the persecution was both systematic and 3 pervasive. See Santoso v. Holder, 580 F.3d 110, 111-12 (2d 4 Cir. 2009) ( accord 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2)); see also Siewe 5 v. Gonzales , 480 F.3d 160, 168-69 (2d Cir. 2007). 6 As he has failed to meet the lower burden for asylum 7 eligibility, Shabbir also fails to meet the higher standard 8 for withholding of removal, that it is more likely than not 9 that he would be persecuted in Pakistan. See generally INS 10 v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421 (1987). 11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 13 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 14 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 15 this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for 16 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 17 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 18 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 19

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

5