Opinion ID: 203835
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Purported Pattern-or-Practice Claim

Text: We address first Balachandran's procedural argument that the BIA erred in failing to address his theory that he qualified for relief on the basis of a pattern or practice of persecution in Sri Lanka. A petitioner who, like Balachandran, fails to establish that he or she will be singled out for persecution may nevertheless qualify for asylum by demonstrating that there is a pattern or practice in his or her country ... of persecution of a group of persons similarly situated to the applicant on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii)(A). The pattern-or-practice theory requires the applicant to present evidence of `systematic persecution' of a group, and to demonstrate that persecutors target the group specifically on account of one of the five statutory grounds. Kho v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 50, 54 (1st Cir.2007) (quoting Meguenine v. INS, 139 F.3d 25, 28 (1st Cir.1998)). Balachandran's brief to the BIA contained only a cursory argument on the pattern-or-practice issue. Balachandran did not identify a specific group that was the subject of the alleged pattern or practice of persecution, presented no evidence of systematic persecution, and failed even to identify which statutory ground would have been the basis of persecution. Balachandran only reproduced portions of the hearing transcript and asserted he was eligible for asylum under a pattern-or-practice theory. Assuming Balachandran did not waive the claim, it is controlled by our decisions in Ravindran v. INS, 976 F.2d 754 (1st Cir.1992), and Ratnasingam. We may affirm where the agency has implicitly addressed a claim, as here. See Un v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 205, 209 (1st Cir.2005) ([W]e expect an agency to make findings, implicitly if not explicitly, on all grounds necessary for decision.). That is especially so where the arguments made on the point to the agency are far from clear. Here, the BIA noted it is well-settled that aliens whose asylum claims are based on the general conditions of violence in a country are not entitled to `refugee' status, implicitly holding that Balachandran failed to show a pattern or practice of persecution based on statutorily protected grounds rather than only hardship resulting from conditions of civil strife. In Ratnasingam, we affirmed the BIA's rejection of a pattern-or-practice claim by a Tamil Sri Lankan on identical grounds. We held that a pattern-or-practice claim cannot be based on a group's suffering due to violent civil conflict ... in the home country. Ratnasingam, 556 F.3d at 14 (omission in original) (quoting Kho, 505 F.3d at 54); see also Ravindran, 976 F.2d at 759. [1]