N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R AM ZAN ALI C HAUDHR Y, Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-71654 Age n c y No. A072-175-541
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d July 11, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B EA a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LYNN, *** C h ie f Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED AUG 25 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble B arbara M . G. Ly

nn, C hie f Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.R a m z an Ali C ha udhry a p pe a ls the de nia l of his a

pplic a tion for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ) by

the B oa rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a ls (“ B IA” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252 a

n d de ny the pe tition. C ha udhry doe s not c ha lle nge the de nia l of his a sy lum a pplic a tion a s a

prope r
e xe rc ise of disc re t ion nor the de nia l of his a pplic ation for C AT prote c t ion. As a
re sult, he ha s wa ive d a

ny c ha lle nge to the a ge nc y ’ s disc re t iona ry de nia l of his
a sy lum a pplic a tion a s we ll a s the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of his a p plic a tion for C AT prote c tion. Se e Tijani v
. Holde r , 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th C ir. 2010); Lope z-Vasque z v . Holde r , 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th C ir. 2013). In re ga rd to withholding of re

m ova l, C ha

udhry c ha lle n ge s the de te rm ination by the im m igration judge(“ IJ” ) that he fa ile d to pre se nt a ny e vide nc e of a

n obje c tive ly

re a sona b l e fe ar of future pe rse c ution ba se d on the possibility tha t he will be single d out individua lly for pe rse c ution if re m o v e d to Pa kista n. Se e W ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th C ir. 2009). C ha u dhry doe s not c ite
any doc um e nta

ry e v ide nc e e sta

blishing tha

t a ny o ne in Pa

kista n wa s fam ilia

r with him or his m ode ra te politic a l opinion. M ore o ve r, the IJ prope rly a fforde d C ha udhry ’ s te stim ony

little we i ght be c a

use she found him

to be not c re dible . The IJ a lso prope rly

gave little we ight to e xpe rt witne ss Dr. Ga bba y ’ s te s tim ony
2be c a

use his c onc lusions we re ba se d on C ha udhry ’ s e x a g ge ra tions a

n d Dr. Ga bba y ’ s own spe c ulat ion. C ha udhry a lso c h a lle nge s the a ge nc y ’ s de te rm ination tha t he fa ile d to de m onstra

te a “ sy ste m a tic patte rn or pra c tic e of pe rse c u tion a ga i nst the group to whic h he be l ongs in his hom e c ountry .” Id. (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d). Spe c ific a lly , C ha

udhry c ha lle nge s the a ge nc y ’ s de t e rm i nation tha t he did not de m onstra

te tha t “ individua ls who re turn a fte r a prolonge d re side nc e in the Unite d Sta t e s” c o nstitute s a

c ogniz a ble soc ia l group unde r the Im m igration a

nd Na tiona l ity

Ac t . A group m

ust be de fine d with suffic i e nt pa rtic ula rity and ha ve
a de quate soc ia l distinc tion in orde r to c onstitute a c ogniz a ble group. Matte r of S-E-G- , 24 I& N De c . 579, 584-88 (B IA 2008). C ha udhry doe s not point to a

ny
e vide nc e indic a ting tha

t Pakista ni soc ie ty pe rc e ive s pe o ple re turning from the Unite d State s to be a distinc t group. In a ddition, C ha udhry doe s not c h a l le nge the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t he fa ile d to de m onstra

t e tha t his propose d group sa

tisfie d the p artic ula

rity re quire m e nt, so he ha s wa ive d a ny c ha lle nge to this de te rm ination. Se e Tijani , 628 F.3d a

t 1080; Lope

z-Vasque z , 706 F.3d a

t 1079-80. Ne xt, C ha

udhry c h a lle nge s the a g e n c y ’ s de te rm ination tha t he did not de m onstra

te a ne xus be twe e n the ha

rm he fe ars in Pa

kista n a n d his a lle ge d prote c te d grounds. C ha

udhry fa ils to de m onstra

te tha t his politic a l opinion or
3m e m

b e rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group of pe ople re turning to Pa kista n a fte r living in the Unite d State s would be a c e ntra l re a son for the ha

rm tha t he fe a rs in Pa kista n. Se e 8 U.S.C
. § 1158(b)(1)(B )(i) (“ To e s ta blish tha t the a pplic a n t is a
re fuge e . . . , the a

pplic ant m

ust e sta blish tha t ra c e , re ligion, na

tiona lity , m e m b e rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group, or politic a l opinion wa s or will be a t le a st
onec e n tral re ason for pe rse c uting thea pplic ant.” (e m

p ha sis a dde d)). The only
re c o rd e vide nc e of the Ta l iba n ta rge ting a re turne e from

the Unite d State s c onsists of a N e w York Time

s artic le c ite d by Dr. Ga

bba y . Tha t a rtic l e disc usse s a

Pa kista ni
nationa l who re turne d to Pa kista n a fte r living in New York for thre e y e ars. He wa s
a bduc te d by

Ta liba n fighte rs a

nd a c c use d of be i ng a

n Am e ric an spy . The m an wa s
re le a se d a fte r a ransom wa s pa id. The spe c ific c irc um sta nc e s of the Ne w York
m an’ s a bduc tion a

re ope n to inte rpre tation, pa rtic ula rly whe re the re is nothing in the a rtic le to sugge st tha

t the Ta liba

n wa s m otiva

te d by the m a n ’ s sta tus a s a
re turne e . A re a sona

b le fa c tfinde r c ould infe r that the m an wa s a bduc te d out of a de sire to re c e ive a

ransom for his re le a se . M ore ove r, fe ar of ge n e ra liz e d or wide spre a d viole nc e in Pa kista n doe s not e sta

blish a ne x us to a

prote c te d ground. Se e D e lgado-Ortiz v . Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th C ir. 2010). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D
.

4