16-1319
Jagdesh v. Sessions
BIA
Hom, IJ
A098 422 127
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 TO 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 20th day of July, two thousand eighteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 SAVITRIE JAGDESH,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 16-1319
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Savitrie Jagdesh, pro se, South
24 Ozone Park, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Anthony C.
28 Payne, Assistant Director; Jessica
29 D. Strokus, Trial Attorney, Office
1 of Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, DC.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Petitioner Savitrie Jagdesh, a native and citizen of
10 Guyana, seeks review of a March 31, 2016, decision of the BIA
11 affirming a May 21, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge
12 (“IJ”) denying Jagdesh’s application for withholding of
13 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture
14 (“CAT”). In re Savitrie Jagdesh, No. A 098 422 127 (B.I.A.
15 Mar. 31, 2016), aff’g No. A 098 422 127 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City
16 May 21, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
17 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
18 We have reviewed the decisions of both the BIA and the
19 IJ “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of
20 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The
21 applicable standards of review are well established. See 8
22 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510,
23 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Although Jagdesh’s counsel before the
2
1 agency failed to exhaust any relevant arguments on appeal to
2 the BIA, given Jagdesh’s current pro se status, we have
3 reviewed the record and the agency’s rulings and find no error
4 in the agency’s conclusion that Jagdesh failed to meet her
5 burden of proof.
6 To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must
7 establish that her “life or freedom would be threatened” in
8 the country of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); see 8
9 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169,
10 178 (2d Cir. 2004). A showing of past persecution creates a
11 presumption of future persecution. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1).
12 “The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain
13 the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the
14 applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s
15 testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific
16 facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a
17 refugee.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(C).
18 “Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should
19 provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible
20 testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the
21 applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably
3
1 obtain the evidence.” Id. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). “No court
2 shall reverse a determination made by a trier of fact with
3 respect to the availability of corroborating evidence . . .
4 unless the court finds, . . . a reasonable trier of fact is
5 compelled to conclude that such corroborating evidence is
6 unavailable.” Id. § 1252(b)(4).
7 As the agency found, Jagdesh did not produce reasonably
8 available documentary evidence. First, at a minimum, she
9 could have obtained testimony or statements from her father,
10 stepmother, or sister, all of whom live in the United States.
11 Second, she failed to provide any medical records, despite
12 alleging that they were in the record, testifying to hospital
13 treatment, and stating in her application that she had
14 obtained a medical report that she filed with a magistrate in
15 Guyana. Accordingly, there is nothing in the record that
16 compels a conclusion that medical records were unavailable.
17 Id. § 1252(b)(4).
18 Finally, the IJ reasonably declined to give weight to
19 Jagdesh’s one piece of evidence, a 2006 letter from the police
20 in Guyana submitted to confirm that Jagdesh had reported
21 threats from her husband in 1999. As the IJ reasoned, the
4
1 letter lacked foundation: it was created after Jagdesh came
2 to the United States and she did not explain how she obtained
3 it. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315,
4 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (reasoning that the weight accorded to an
5 applicant’s evidence “lie[s] largely within the discretion of
6 the IJ.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, the
7 letter conflicted with Jagdesh’s testimony to the extent that
8 it reported that there was an investigation, but that her ex-
9 husband had gone into hiding.
10 Given the complete absence of reliable corroboration,
11 the agency reasonably concluded that Jagdesh failed to meet
12 her burden of proof. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). This
13 determination is dispositive of withholding of removal and
14 CAT relief because both claims are based on the same factual
15 predicate. See Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119-20 (2d
16 Cir. 2010).
17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
19 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
20 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
21 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
5
1 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
2 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
3 34.1(b).
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
6 Clerk of Court
6