19

- 3460 Singh v. Garland BIA Nelson, IJ A 200 238 866 

### 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 United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,**  3 **on the 2**  **5 t**  **h da**  **y of O**  **c t**  **o b**  **e r**  **, two thousand twenty** 

**- one** 

**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES**
**,** 7 **SUSAN L. CARNEY ,**  8 **MICHAEL H. PARK ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **TALVINDER SINGH ,**  13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15

**v. 19** 

**- 3460**  16 **NAC** 17 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 **Respondent**

**.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Anas J. Ahmed, Esq., Pannun the 23 Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** John D. Williams , Trial Attorney, 26 ( Russel J. E. Verby , Senior 272 Litigation Counsel, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, on the 2 brief ), for Brian Boynton, Acting 3 Assistant Attorney General , Civil 4 Division , United States Department 5 of Justice. 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 petitio n for review 9

is DENIED

. 10

Petitioner Talvinder Singh , a native and citizen of 11

India , seeks review of a n October 9, 2019 decision of the BIA 12

affirming a February 15, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge 13

(“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 14

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. In re Singh , 15

No. A 200 238 866 (B.I.A. Oct. 9, 201 9 ), aff’g No. A 200 238 16

866 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. C. Feb. 15, 2018 ). We assume the parties’ 17

familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 18

T he BIA assumed credibility and affirmed the IJ’s 19

decision as to only its alternate finding that , even if Singh 20

were credible, he failed to meet his burden of proof

. 21

Accordingly, we review the BIA’s decision. See Yan Chen v. 22

Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The adverse 23

credibility determination is no longer part of the decision 243 under review and , like the BIA, we assume , but do not 1

determine, credibility. Id

. at 271

– 72. The applicable 2

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

§ 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder , 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 4

2014) (reviewing factual findings under the substantial 5

evidence standard and questions of law de novo ). We d eny the 6

petition because Singh has failed to assert a meaningful 7

challenge to the dispositive bas e s for the BIA’s decision. 8

In his brief, Singh challenges the IJ’s determination 9

that he was not credible, but that issue is not before this 10

Court

. S ee Yan Chen , 417 F.3d at 271

– 72. Singh does not 11

acknowledge that the agency found insufficient evidence of a 12

nexus to a protected grou p or the involvement or acquiescence 13

of government actors, or identify what evidence supports his 14

conclusion. Accordingly, he has abandoned any challenge to 15

the dispositive bases for the BIA’s decision. See Yueqing 16

Zhang v. Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) 17

(deeming applicant’s “claim abandoned” where he raised an 18

issue in “only a single conclusory sentence”); Norton v. Sam’s 19

Club , 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998) (“Issues not 20

sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and 214 normall y will not be addressed on appeal.”). 1

Even had he preserved a challenge to the dispositive 2

findings, we would find no basis for remand

. To establish 3

eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal, an 4

applicant has the burden to show past persecution, or a fear 5

of future persecution, on account of race, religion, 6

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 7

political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(B)(i), 8

1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b), 1208.16(b). An applicant 9

must demonstrate that his persecutors were motivated by their 10

perception of his political opinion, rather than merely by 11

their own opinion. See Yueqing Zhang , 426 F.3d at 545. 12

Although Singh testified that he did not agree with the 13

militant s ’ mission to separate Kashmir from India, he did not 14

allege that the militants attacked him because of this view , 15

but rather that they attacked him when he refused to work for 16

them

. See INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) 17

(requiring evidence that guerillas would target applicant 18

“ because of [applicant’s] political opinion, rather than 19

because of [applicant’s] refusal to fight with them”)

. 20

Additionally, the agency reasonably concluded that Singh 215 failed to establish that he was a member of his proposed 1

particular social group of “ males in Kashmir forced to join 2

terrorist group s ” b ecause he never established that the 3

individuals who attacked him were part of a terrorist group. 4

Finally, t he record supports the agency’s denial of Singh’s 5

CAT claim because Singh did not establish that he would more 6

likely than not be tortured by, or with th e acquiescence of, 7

government officials. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 8

1208.18(a)(1); Khouzam v. Ashcroft , 361 F.3d 161, 168 (2d 9

Cir. 2004). 10

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 11

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 12

stays VACATED. 13

FOR THE COURT: 14 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 15 Clerk of Court 16