09-2565-ag
Bateswar v. Holder
BIA
DeFonzo, IJ
A071 495 910
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 21 st day of April, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
ROGER J. MINER,
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
Circuit Judges.
______________________________________
RAMNATH BATESWAR,
Petitioner,
v. 09-2565-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Marotta, Vernon, N.J.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Blair O’Connor, Assistant
Director; Rachel Browning, Trial
Attorney, Office of Immigration
Litigation, United States Department
of Justice, Washington, DC
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Ramnath Bateswar, a citizen of Suriname, seeks review
of a May 27, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the July 17,
2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Paul A. DeFonzo,
which denied Bateswar’s application for asylum and
withholding of removal. In re Ramnath Bateswar No. A071 495
910 (B.I.A. May 27, 2009), aff’g No. A071 495 910 (Immig.
Ct. N.Y. City July 17, 2007). We assume the parties’
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
applicable standards of review are well-established. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d
510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that
Bateswar failed to establish that he had suffered past
persecution. As the IJ found, Bateswar’s March 1992 arrest
2
did not rise to the level of persecution. See Ivanishvili
v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir. 2006)
(holding that the harm must be sufficiently severe, rising
above “mere harassment”). Moreover, the arrest was
unrelated to his discovery of weapons on a plane in Libya.
See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 (2d Cir.
2005)(holding that “an [asylum] applicant must establish a
fear of reprisal ‘on account of’ having demonstrated
opposition to the government policy”).
The agency also reasonably determined that, even if
Bateswar has established past persecution, conditions in
Suriname had changed such that he could not establish a
well-founded fear of future persecution because Colonel
Bouterse no longer holds power. 1 See Niang v. Mukasey, 511
F.3d 138, 148-49 (2d Cir. 2007)(stating that while a finding
of past persecution establishes a presumption of future
1
In fact, the 2009 U.S. State Department Human Rights
Report for Suriname states that Colonel Bouterse is
currently on trial for murders committed during his regime.
2009 U.S. State Department Human rights Report: Suriname,
available at
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/wha/136127.htm;
see Hoxhallari v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 179, 186 n.5 (2d Cir.
2006) (stating that the Court “may always exercise
independent discretion to take judicial notice of any
further changes in a country's politics that occurred
between the time of the BIA’s determination decision and our
review”).
3
persecution, this presumption can be rebutted if the
government establishes a “fundamental change in
circumstances such that the applicant’s life or freedom
would not be threatened on account of any of the five
grounds” (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)). Because
Bateswar is unable to meet his burden of proof for asylum,
his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See
Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4