23-6292 Khanduri v. Garland BIA McCarthy, IJ A208 109 539

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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 2nd day of January, two thousand 4 twenty-five. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 VINAY DEVIPRASAD KHANDURI, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 23-6292 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno J. Bembi, Esq., Hempstead, NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 2 Attorney General; Jennifer Levings, Assistant 3 Director; Robert P. Coleman III, Trial 4 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 5 United States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC.

7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of

8 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

9 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

10 Petitioner Vinay Deviprasad Khanduri, a native and citizen of India, seeks

11 review of a March 3, 2023, decision of the BIA affirming a February 19, 2020,

12 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum,

13 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

14 (“CAT”). In re Vinay Deviprasad Khanduri, No. A208 109 539 (B.I.A. Mar. 3, 2023),

15 aff’g No. A208 109 539 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 19, 2020). We assume the

16 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

17 “When the BIA issues an opinion, the opinion becomes the basis for judicial

18 review of the decision of which the alien is complaining.” Bhagtana v. Garland,

19

(2d Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). While we

20 nevertheless review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of

21 completeness,” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,

(2d Cir. 2 1 2006), we review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, considering only the

2 grounds on which the BIA relied, Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just.,

,

3 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review findings of fact for substantial evidence, and we

4 review questions of law and the application of law to fact de novo. See Yanqin

5 Weng v. Holder,

(2d Cir. 2009). “[T]he administrative findings of

6 fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to

7 conclude to the contrary.”

(b)(4)(B).

8 I. Asylum and Withholding of Removal

9 An asylum applicant has the burden to establish past persecution or a well-

10 founded fear of future persecution and that “race, religion, nationality,

11 membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least

12 one central reason for persecuting the applicant.”

(b)(1)(B)(i); see

13 also

(a), (b). “The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient

14 to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant

15 satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive,

16 and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee.”

17

(b)(1)(B)(ii); Wei Sun v. Sessions,

(2d Cir. 2018). “In

18 determining whether the applicant has met [his] burden, the trier of fact may

3 1 weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence of record. Where the

2 trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that

3 corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless

4 the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the

5 evidence.”

(b)(1)(B)(ii). When denying a claim “based on the

6 applicant’s failure to provide reasonably obtainable corroborating evidence, . . .

7 the IJ must (1) point to specific pieces of missing evidence and show that it was

8 reasonably available, (2) give the applicant an opportunity to explain the omission,

9 and (3) assess any explanation given.” Pinel-Gomez v. Garland,

, 529

10 (2d Cir. 2022).

11 Khanduri alleged that he and his family were abused, harassed, threatened,

12 and framed for crimes by his father-in-law who was angry that Khanduri, a Hindu,

13 had eloped with his Sikh daughter, Sada. The agency correctly applied Pinel-

14 Gomez and reasonably denied asylum based on a lack of corroborating evidence.

15 The IJ determined that Khanduri was generally credible but found that his

16 testimony was insufficient to meet his burden of proof because of discrepancies

17 between his testimony, written statement, and asylum interview and his admitted

18 memory issues. See

(b)(1)(B)(ii) (allowing for corroboration of

4 1 even credible testimony). The IJ pointed to specific pieces of missing evidence

2 that were reasonably available—letters from Khanduri’s father (or other family

3 members) and from his former wife, Sada.

4 Regarding Khanduri’s father, the Government contends that Khanduri’s

5 argument that the agency overlooked an affidavit from his father is unexhausted.

6 Issue exhaustion is mandatory when, as here, the Government raises the failure to

7 exhaust. See Ud Din v. Garland,

, 419–20 & n.2 (2d Cir. 2023).

8 Although petitioners are not limited to the “exact contours” of their argument to

9 the agency and we may consider “specific, subsidiary legal arguments or

10 arguments by extension” that were not presented to the agency, Gill v. INS, 420

, 85–86 (2d Cir. 2005), “when an argument made to this Court cannot be

12 closely matched up with a specific argument made to the BIA, it has not been

13 properly exhausted and we cannot hear it,” Vera Punin v. Garland,

,

14 124 (2d Cir. 2024). Accordingly, Khanduri’s argument that the agency ignored an

15 affidavit from his father is unexhausted because he mentioned at the hearing that

16 he had an affidavit but (1) did not inform the IJ that it was in the record or discuss

17 its contents, (2) his counsel told the IJ there were no corroborating letters, and

18 (3) on appeal to the BIA, Khanduri did not mention an affidavit from his father.

5 1 See Ud Din, 72 F.4th at 419–20 & n.2. Khanduri’s conclusory statement to the BIA

2 that the IJ ignored testimony and erred in ruling that he did not provide

3 corroboration was followed by a statement that communication with his family

4 had broken down, thus implying there were no letters. Therefore, the argument

5 he appeared to raise before the BIA—that his testimony was enough without

6 corroboration—does not match his argument here that the IJ ignored evidence in

7 the record. See Vera Punin,

.

8 Given the information that Khanduri brought to the attention of the IJ and

9 the BIA, the agency did not err in denying relief for lack of corroboration. The

10 agency identified missing evidence, asked why it had not been presented, and

11 considered Khanduri’s explanations. See Pinel-Gomez,

. The IJ also

12 reasonably rejected Khanduri’s explanations for not having letters from his father,

13 other family members, or Sada. An IJ “must” ensure that an applicant’s

14 explanation for why he failed to provide such evidence is on the record, and

15 “should clearly state for the record whether the explanation is sufficient.” Matter

16 of L–A–C–,

, 521–22 (B.I.A. 2015). That is, an IJ “must . . . assess

17 any explanation given.” Pinel-Gomez,

(quotation marks omitted).

18 Khanduri argues that the IJ failed to create a sufficient record for rejecting his

6 1 explanations. To the contrary, when the IJ pressed Khanduri as to why he did

2 not obtain a letter from his father or family, Khanduri said his relationship with

3 his family had broken down after his divorce from Sada in 2019. The agency

4 provided a reasonable explanation for rejecting this justification—that Khanduri

5 had nearly five years to obtain corroborating evidence after he applied for asylum

6 in 2015, and he had a functioning relationship with his family for four of those

7 years. Thus, this record does not compel the conclusion that letters from

8 Khanduri’s family were unavailable. “No court shall reverse a determination

9 made by a trier of fact with respect to the availability of corroborating evidence . .

10 . unless the court finds . . . that a reasonable trier of fact is compelled to conclude

11 that such corroborating evidence is unavailable.”

(b)(4).

12 Similarly, regarding a letter from Sada, the record does not compel the

13 conclusion that a letter was unavailable.

When asked why he did not have a

14 letter from Sada, Khanduri was not responsive. In reply to the question why Sada

15 could not have provided a letter when she was in the United States with Khanduri

16 in 2016, Khanduri stated, “I had contact with her at that point of time, but since

17 two years, she has not been here.” His statement that she had not been in the

18 United States for two years did not explain why he did not obtain a statement from

7 1 her while she was in the United States or before their divorce. Thus, contrary to

2 Khanduri’s assertion here, the agency gave him a chance to explain why he did

3 not have a letter from Sada, and he failed to provide a coherent explanation.

4 The lack of corroboration is dispositive of both asylum and withholding of

5 removal. See

(b)(3)(C) (providing that corroboration requirements

6 for asylum apply to withholding of removal). Khanduri’s remaining arguments

7 are misplaced because the BIA relied only on the corroboration ruling in affirming

8 the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. See Xue Hong Yang,

522.

10 II. CAT Relief

11 Khanduri waives his CAT claim because he does not meaningfully

12 challenge the denial of it here. “We consider abandoned any claims not

13 adequately presented in an appellant’s brief, and an appellant’s failure to make

14 legal or factual arguments constitutes abandonment.” Debique v. Garland,

676, 684 (2d Cir. 2023). Khanduri advances a cursory argument that “he is

16 entitled to relief under [the CAT],” but this bare statement supported by no legal

17 authority is insufficient for this Court to consider the argument as properly

18 challenging the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See

(concluding that the

8 1 petitioner abandoned a claim by failing to explain “why the BIA and IJ erred”).

2 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending

3 motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 6 Clerk of Court 7

9