17-280
Pierre v. Sessions
BIA
Connelly, IJ
A206 863 794
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
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 18th day of October, two thousand eighteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 GUIDO CALABRESI,
9 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JOSEPH JUDE PIERRE,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 17-280
17 NAC
18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Amanda E. Gray, Portland, OR.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Greg D. Mack,
27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Leslie
28 McKay, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, DC.
32
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 Joseph Jude Pierre, a native and citizen of
6 Haiti, seeks review of a December 30, 2016, decision of the
7 BIA affirming a March 27, 2015, decision of an Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) denying Pierre’s application for asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Joseph Jude Pierre, No. A 206
11 863 794 (B.I.A. Dec. 30, 2016), aff’g No. A 206 863 794
12 (Immig. Ct. Batavia Mar. 27, 2015). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
14 in this case.
15 We have reviewed the decisions of both the BIA and the
16 IJ. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008).
17 The applicable standards of review are well established. See
18 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d
19 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
20 To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of
21 removal, “the applicant must establish that race, religion,
22 nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
23 political opinion was or will be at least one central
2
1 reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C.
2 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see id. § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R.
3 § 1208.16(b); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178
4 (2d Cir. 2004). The agency did not err in finding that
5 Pierre failed to establish his eligibility for asylum and
6 withholding of removal insofar as those claims were based
7 on the threatening actions of bandits or the murder of his
8 mother. As the agency concluded, neither threats alone nor
9 harm to Pierre’s family members, without more, constitute
10 past persecution of Pierre. See Gui Ci Pan v. U.S. Att’y
11 General, 449 F.3d 408, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2006); Tao Jiang v.
12 Gonzales, 500 F.3d 137, 141 (2d Cir. 2007).
13 The agency did not err in finding that Pierre failed to
14 establish a well-founded fear of future persecution because
15 he did not prove that his fear was objectively reasonable.
16 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(i); Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 178.
17 Pierre conceded that he had no proof that the bandits acted
18 based on political motivations rather than ordinary
19 criminality and thus could not prove that they would target
20 him based on an imputed political opinion or other protected
21 ground. See Acharya v. Holder, 761 F.3d 289, 297 (2d Cir.
22 2014); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992)
3
1 (requiring some direct or circumstantial evidence of
2 persecutor’s motives).
3 Moreover, Pierre did not establish eligibility for
4 protection under the CAT because he failed to show that he
5 is “more likely than not” to be tortured by or with the
6 acquiescence of a government official on return to Haiti.
7 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). Although he
8 explained that he is afraid the bandits will torture and
9 kill him if he returns, given his use of the courts in
10 Haiti and testimony that police officers were willing to
11 take his complaint, he did not demonstrate that the Haitian
12 government would acquiesce to his torture by bandits. Id.;
13 see Savchuck v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 119, 123-24 (2d Cir.
14 2008).
15 Pierre also challenges how the IJ conducted his hearing.
16 “To establish a violation of due process, an alien must show
17 that [he] was denied a full and fair opportunity to present
18 [his] claims or that the IJ or BIA otherwise deprived [him]
19 of fundamental fairness.” Burger v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 131,
20 134 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted). The
21 transcript does not suggest the IJ deprived Pierre of an
22 opportunity to present his claims or that his hearing lacked
23 fundamental fairness. Although Pierre argues that his due
4
1 process rights were violated by faulty translations, the
2 transcript shows that Pierre was repeatedly offered
3 opportunities to follow up on his answers, and the IJ asked
4 for clarification.
5 Finally, because Pierre’s remaining objections were not
6 exhausted before the BIA, they are beyond the scope of our
7 review. Severino v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 79, 83 (2d Cir. 2008)
8 (requiring a petitioner to “raise procedural defects that the
9 BIA has the power to correct”); Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of
10 Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 122 (2d Cir. 2007).
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
13 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
14 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
15 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
16 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
17 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
18 34.1(b).
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
21 Clerk of Court
5