Ghani v. Sessions
696 F. App'x 17
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Umer Ghani, a Pakistani national, seeks review of the BIA’s March 15, 2016 decision affirming an IJ’s denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief.
- Ghani alleges fear of future persecution by the Taliban based on family incidents: a 2008 kidnapping of his brother and cousin, a threatening letter sent to him in 2008, and a nephew killed in a suicide attack on an unknown date.
- Ghani testified the Taliban targeted his family because they are wealthy and that his home region (near Swat Valley) is dangerous.
- Ghani did not allege past persecution; his claim rests on a fear of future harm more likely than not.
- The IJ and BIA found the threats remote and isolated: the letter was nearly a decade old, threats were not repeated, and similarly situated family members have lived in Pakistan unharmed.
- The BIA concluded Ghani failed to show it was more likely than not he would be persecuted; therefore withholding and CAT relief were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ghani showed it is more likely than not he will be persecuted in Pakistan | Ghani: prior Taliban incidents (kidnapping, threatening letter, nephew's death) and regional danger make future persecution likely | Gov: incidents are old, isolated, and family members remain unharmed; conditions of criminal violence do not equal persecution | Denied — substantial evidence supports finding petitioner did not show a >50% chance of persecution |
| Whether alleged harm is on account of a protected ground (nexus) | Ghani: Taliban targeted family for wealth and possibly imputed religion | Gov: agency found no need to decide nexus because claimant failed likelihood element; also emphasizes criminal incentives rather than persecution | Not reached — agency declined to decide nexus because likelihood failure was dispositive |
| Eligibility for CAT relief based on same facts | Ghani: CAT relief warranted if persecutory actors would torture him upon return | Gov: CAT claim fails because underlying factual predicate (likelihood of serious harm) not established | Denied — CAT relief precluded by same factual failure |
| Whether agency required to rule on all subsidiary issues (e.g., imputed religion) | Ghani: agency should have addressed nexus/imputed religious belief | Gov: agency need not decide unnecessary issues once dispositive ruling made | Denied — court upheld agency’s discretion not to decide unnecessary issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (consider both IJ and BIA opinions for completeness)
- Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) (standards of review for BIA decisions)
- Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2013) (burden for withholding of removal: more likely than not and protected-ground nexus)
- Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007) (criminally motivated violence may not constitute persecution for purposes of asylum/withholding)
- Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 1999) (absence of harm to similarly situated family members undermines future-fear claims)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976) (agencies need not decide issues unnecessary to their ultimate disposition)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (CAT relief requires showing of likelihood of torture and is precluded if withholding claim fails)