09-2193-ag
Diallo v. Holder
BIA
Lamb, IJ
A 097 530 426
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 1 st day of April, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 GUIDO CALABRESI,
10 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _______________________________________
13
14 SEYDOU BOUBACAR DIALLO,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 09-2193-ag
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY
20 GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 ______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Samy Beshay, New York, New York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Lyle D. Jentzer, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Paul F. Stone,
29 Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, Washington
31 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 Seydou Boubacar Diallo, a native and citizen
6 of Mali, seeks review of the April 27, 2009, order of the
7 BIA affirming the November 16, 2007, decision of Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) Elizabeth Lamb pretermitting his application
9 for asylum and denying his application for withholding of
10 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture
11 (“CAT”). In re Seydou Boubacar Diallo, No. A 097 530 426
12 (B.I.A. Apr. 27, 2009), aff’g No. A 097 530 426 (Immig. Ct.
13 N.Y. City Nov. 16, 2007). We assume the parties’
14 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
15 in this case.
16 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
17 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Dong Gao v. BIA,
18 482 F.3d 122, 125 (2d Cir. 2007). The applicable standards
19 of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C.
20 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513
21 (2d Cir. 2009).
22 The agency properly determined that the past
2
1 mistreatment Diallo described did not rise to the level of
2 persecution. See Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433
3 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir. 2006). For example, although he
4 testified that a bus he was riding on in 1994 was stopped by
5 a group of Arabs, and that another group of rebels
6 unsuccessfully searched for him in a movie theater, such
7 “mere harassment” does not constitute persecution. Id.
8 The agency also reasonably found that Diallo failed to
9 establish an objectively reasonable fear of future
10 persecution. Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d
11 Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (holding that a fear is not
12 objectively reasonable “[i]n the absence of solid support in
13 the record”). The BIA observed that the State Department
14 reports in the record indicated that “[t]here are no current
15 conflicts, although there have been some signs of
16 dissatisfaction among the Tuareg.” Furthermore, the IJ
17 properly noted that Diallo’s family continues to live in
18 Mali unharmed. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307,
19 313 (2d Cir. 1999) (finding that where asylum applicant’s
20 mother and daughters continued to live in petitioner’s
21 native country, claim of well-founded fear was diminished).
22 Although Diallo argues that his other family members are not
3
1 “similarly situated” because they are female, he testified
2 that his uncle continues to live and work in his village and
3 has not suffered any persecution.
4 Thus, because Diallo failed to establish either past
5 persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution,
6 the agency did not err in denying his application for asylum
7 and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42);
8 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357
9 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). Diallo does not challenge the
10 agency’s denial of his claim for CAT relief.
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion
13 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.
14 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is
15 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate
16 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
17
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
20
21
22
4