Haidar v. Holder

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