19-3460 Singh v. Garland BIA Nelson, IJ A200 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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 25th day of October, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 TALVINDER SINGH, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-3460 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Anas J. Ahmed, Esq., Pannun the 24 Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: John D. Williams, Trial Attorney, 27 (Russel J. E. Verby, Senior 1 Litigation Counsel, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, on the 3 brief), for Brian Boynton, Acting 4 Assistant Attorney General, Civil 5 Division, United States Department 6 of Justice.

7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

10 is DENIED.

11 Petitioner Talvinder Singh, a native and citizen of

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

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

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

15 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Singh,

16 No. A 200 238 866 (B.I.A. Oct. 9, 2019), aff’g No. A 200 238

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

18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

19 The BIA assumed credibility and affirmed the IJ’s

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

21 were credible, he failed to meet his burden of proof.

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

23 Gonzales,

(2d Cir. 2005). The adverse

24 credibility determination is no longer part of the decision

2 1 under review and, like the BIA, we assume, but do not

2 determine, credibility.

at 271–72. The applicable

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

4 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder,

(2d Cir.

5 2014) (reviewing factual findings under the substantial

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

7 petition because Singh has failed to assert a meaningful

8 challenge to the dispositive bases for the BIA’s decision.

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

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

11 Court. See Yan Chen, 417 F.3d at 271–72. Singh does not

12 acknowledge that the agency found insufficient evidence of a

13 nexus to a protected group or the involvement or acquiescence

14 of government actors, or identify what evidence supports his

15 conclusion. Accordingly, he has abandoned any challenge to

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

17 Zhang v. Gonzales,

, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005)

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

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

20 Club,

(2d Cir. 1998) (“Issues not

21 sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and

3 1 normally will not be addressed on appeal.”).

2 Even had he preserved a challenge to the dispositive

3 findings, we would find no basis for remand. To establish

4 eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal, an

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

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

7 nationality, membership in a particular social group, or

8 political opinion. See

(b)(B)(i),

9 1231(b)(3);

(b), 1208.16(b). An applicant

10 must demonstrate that his persecutors were motivated by their

11 perception of his political opinion, rather than merely by

12 their own opinion. See Yueqing Zhang,

.

13 Although Singh testified that he did not agree with the

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

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

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

17 them. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,

(1992)

18 (requiring evidence that guerillas would target applicant

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

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

21 Additionally, the agency reasonably concluded that Singh

4 1 failed to establish that he was a member of his proposed

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

3 terrorist groups” because he never established that the

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

5 Finally, the record supports the agency’s denial of Singh’s

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

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

8 government officials. See

(c),

9 1208.18(a)(1); Khouzam v. Ashcroft,

(2d

10 Cir. 2004).

11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

12 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

13 stays VACATED.

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

5