13-3883
Ould Sid Ahmed v. Lynch
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A200 165 336
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 26th day of February, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 SID AHMED OULD DENA OULD SID AHMED,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-3883
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Paul Fiorino, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel; Matthew B.
28 George, Trial Attorney; Jaimie M.
29 Lowen, Law Clerk; Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Sid Ahmed Ould Dena Ould Sid Ahmed, a native
6 and citizen of Mauritania, seeks review of a September 20,
7 2013 order of the BIA, affirming the July 12, 2012 decision
8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ould Sid Ahmed, No. A200 165
11 336 (B.I.A. Sept. 20, 2013), aff’g No. A200 165 336 (Immig.
12 Ct. N.Y.C. July 12, 2012). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
14 in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
16 IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the BIA, and
17 assume Ould’s1 credibility. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417
18 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of
19 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
20 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
21
1
As both parties’ briefs refer to Petitioner as “Ould,”
we do so as well.
2
1 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that
2 Ould’s fear of future persecution was not objectively
3 reasonable. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169,
4 178 (2d Cir. 2004). Ould claimed fear of persecution at the
5 hands of his family for the transgression of drinking beer.
6 But the agency found that the reasonableness of such a fear
7 is undercut by the long time Ould safely spent in Mauritania
8 after his family learned that he drank beer. Ould has
9 supplied no reason for disputing that determination. See
10 Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005).
11 The only objective evidence Ould submitted to show that
12 he might be harmed in Mauritania was a summons from the
13 Mauritanian government, and a country report stating that
14 Mauritania enforces its prohibition on alcohol. Punishment
15 “for violation of a generally applicable criminal law is not
16 persecution,” Saleh v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 962 F.2d 234,
17 239 (2d Cir. 1992), and persecution cannot be established
18 merely on the basis of a constraint in personal liberty that
19 we would find oppressive in the United States. Y.C. v.
20 Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 338 (2d Cir. 2013). Ould also has not
21 shown that the law he is fleeing is enforced in a
22 discriminatory fashion that would constitute persecution on
3
1 account of religious beliefs. See Saleh, 962 F.2d at 239;
2 Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 2010). Ould
3 thus failed to show that the agency erred in denying asylum
4 and withholding of removal based on his fear of alcohol-
5 based prosecution by the Mauritanian government. See Jian
6 Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 162 (2d Cir. 2008).
7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
8 DENIED.
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
11
12
4