17-1675
Woolery v. Whitaker
BIA
Straus, IJ
A077 723 161
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 15th day of January, two thousand nineteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 SYLVAN JAMES WOOLERY,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 17-1675
17 NAC
18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING
19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Osakwe, Hartford, CT.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Margaret Kuehne
27 Taylor, Senior Litigation Counsel;
28 Elizabeth K. Fitzgerald-Sambou,
29 Trial Attorney, Office of
30 Immigration Litigation, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 Washington, DC.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Sylvan James Woolery, a native and citizen of
6 Jamaica, seeks review of an April 26, 2017, decision of the
7 BIA affirming the March 9, 2016, decision of an Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for withholding of
9 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture
10 (“CAT”). In re Sylvan James Woolery, No. A077 723 161 (B.I.A.
11 Apr. 26, 2017), aff’g No. A077 723 161 (Immig. Ct. Hartford
12 Mar. 9, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
14 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the
15 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d
16 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The only issues before us are
17 whether Woolery established his eligibility for withholding
18 of removal or CAT relief. The applicable standards of review
19 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin
20 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency
21 did not err in finding that Woolery failed to establish his
22 eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT relief based on
2
1 his claim that he was shot in Jamaica in 1992 and that he
2 fears gang violence in that country.
3 To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, an
4 applicant must show that any harm suffered was on account “of
5 the [applicant’s] race, religion, nationality, membership in
6 a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C.
7 § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i). We treat
8 Woolery’s claim that he established his membership in a
9 particular social group as exhausted. See Gill v. INS, 420
10 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir. 2005) (“[W]e have never held that a
11 petitioner is limited to the exact contours of his argument
12 below.”). Nevertheless, Woolery did not provide any details
13 regarding his group membership and he did not know who shot
14 him or why. Accordingly, the agency did not err in finding
15 that he failed to establish that he suffered past persecution
16 on account of his membership in a particular social group or
17 any other protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A);
18 see also In re J-B-N- & S-M-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 208, 214 (BIA
19 2007); cf. Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70, 73 (2d Cir.
20 2007) (“When the harm visited upon members of a group is
21 attributable to the incentives presented to ordinary
22 criminals rather than to persecution, the scales are tipped
3
1 away from considering those people a ‘particular social
2 group’ . . . .”).
3 The agency also did not err in finding that Woolery
4 failed to demonstrate a likelihood of persecution or torture
5 so as to establish his eligibility for withholding of removal
6 and CAT relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2), (c)(2). He
7 did not identify any individual or group interested in
8 targeting him in Jamaica. See id.; see also Jian Xing Huang
9 v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (“In the absence of
10 solid support in the record . . . , [an applicant’s] fear is
11 speculative at best”). Insofar as Woolery fears general
12 violence in Jamaica, such conditions, while unfortunate, are
13 insufficient to satisfy his burden for withholding of removal
14 or CAT relief. See Mu-Xing Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130,
15 144 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that beyond general country
16 conditions evidence demonstrating incidents of torture in a
17 country, an applicant for CAT relief must provide some
18 evidence “that someone in his particular alleged
19 circumstances is more likely than not to be tortured.”
20 emphasis omitted)); Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307,
21 314 n.3 (2d Cir. 1999) (noting that general violence does not
4
1 establish a well-founded fear of persecution absent evidence
2 showing a particular risk to the applicant).
3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
4 DENIED.
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe
7 Clerk of Court
5