10-404-ag
Haidar v. Holder
BIA
Owens, IJ
A098 907 325
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
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 11th day of February, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 KATIA HAIDAR,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-404-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Hamza Ma’ayergi, Stamford,
24 Connecticut.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General, Civil Division; Ada E.
28 Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel;
29 Yamileth G. Handuber, Trial
1 Attorney, Office of Immigration
2 Litigation, United States Department
3 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
7 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
8 review is DENIED.
9 Petitioner Katia Haidar, a native and citizen of the
10 Ivory Coast, seeks review of a December 31, 2009, order of
11 the BIA affirming the August 23, 2008, decision of
12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert P. Owens, denying her
13 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
14 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Katia
15 Haidar, No. A098 907 325 (B.I.A. Dec. 31, 2009), aff’g No.
16 A098 907 325 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Aug. 23, 2008). We assume
17 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
18 procedural history in this case.
19 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
20 IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. See Shunfu
21 Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008). The
22 applicable standards of review are well-established.
23 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575
24 F.3d 193, 196 (2d Cir. 2009).
2
1 Because Haidar does not challenge the agency’s denial
2 of withholding of removal or CAT relief, we deem any such
3 arguments waived. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d
4 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). Thus, the only issue
5 before us is whether the agency erred in determining that
6 Haidar failed to establish her eligibility for asylum.
7 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
8 determination that Haidar failed to meet her burden of
9 proof. We have held that “[w]hile consistent, detailed, and
10 credible testimony may be sufficient to carry the alien's
11 burden, evidence corroborating his story, or an explanation
12 for its absence, may be required where it would reasonably
13 be expected.” Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 285 (2d Cir.
14 2000). The IJ reasonably found that Haidar’s testimony
15 alone, even if credible, was insufficient to support her
16 claim because her testimony was not sufficiently persuasive
17 or detailed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Chuilu Liu,
18 575 F.3d at 196-99. The IJ did not err in relying on
19 Haidar’s failure to corroborate her claim with testimony or
20 an affidavit from her husband because such evidence was
21 reasonably available. See Chuilu Liu, 575 F.3d at 197-98.
22 Moreover, although Haidar claimed that her husband could not
3
1 attend her hearing due to a doctor’s appointment, the IJ
2 reasonably rejected such explanation because Haidar failed
3 to establish that her husband’s absence resulted from an
4 emergency or that she was unable to submit an affidavit from
5 him. See id.
6 We note also that, even after the IJ asked petitioner
7 about her husband’s absence from the hearing, petitioner
8 neither requested a continuance nor presented any additional
9 evidence when given an opportunity to do so. While
10 petitioner’s counsel later referenced the IJ’s refusal to
11 grant a thirty-minute recess prior to closing arguments, the
12 record does not reflect that counsel made a such a request
13 or any other request for a continuance. Moreover, even if
14 the petitioner had made such a request, the IJ was not
15 required to grant Haidar a continuance to present her
16 husband’s testimony, especially when she could not explain
17 why she was unable to present an affidavit. See id. at 198
18 n.6 (“It is not at all clear that we could require an IJ to
19 delay or adjourn proceedings to allow submission of
20 corroborating material that could have been collected in
21 advance of the hearing . . . .”). Thus, the IJ’s decision
22 is supported by substantial evidence.
4
1 The IJ also reasonably relied on the absence of
2 evidence of country conditions to corroborate Haidar’s
3 individualized claim of past persecution or a well-founded
4 fear of future persecution. See Diallo, 232 F.3d at 288
5 (stating that corroboration “typically includes both
6 evidence of general country conditions and evidence that
7 substantiates the applicant’s particular claims”). With
8 respect to the country conditions evidence Haidar did
9 submit, the IJ did not err in finding that such evidence did
10 little to corroborate her specific claims of past
11 persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution
12 because the articles merely detailed general conditions of
13 unrest in the Ivory Coast. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno,
14 191 F.3d 307, 314 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that “general
15 crime conditions are not a stated ground” for a well-founded
16 fear of future persecution). Accordingly, we find no error
17 in the IJ’s determination that Haidar failed to meet her
18 burden of proof. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); Chuilu
19 Liu, 575 F.3d at 196-99.
20 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
21 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
22 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
5
1 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
2 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
3 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
4 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
5 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
8
9
10
11
6