11-69-ag
Kamara v. Holder
BIA
Schoppert, IJ
A096 167 618
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 6th day of August, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
Circuit Judges.1
_______________________________________
MOHAMED KAMARA,
Petitioner,
v. 11-69-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION APPEALS,
Respondents.
_______________________________________
1
The Honorable Roger J. Miner, originally a member of the panel,
died on February 18, 2012. The two remaining members of the panel, who are
in agreement, have determined the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d); 2d Cir.
IOP E(b); United States v. Desimone, 140 F.3d 457 (2d Cir. 1998).
FOR PETITIONER: Brian I. Kaplan, New York, New York.
FOR RESPONDENTS: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Daniel E. Goldman, Senior
Litigation Counsel; Jonathan
Robbins, Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
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.
Mohamed Kamara, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone,
seeks review of a November 23, 2010, order of the BIA,
affirming the December 9, 2008, decision of Immigration
Judge (“IJ”) Douglas B. Schoppert, which denied his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mohamed
Kamara, No. A096 167 618 (B.I.A. Nov. 23, 2010), aff’g No.
A096 167 618 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 9, 2008). We assume
the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the
IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yang Chen v.
Gonzalez, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the
2
agency's factual findings under the substantial evidence
standard. See Aliyev v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 111, 115 (2d Cir.
2008).
Here, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
conclusion that conditions in Sierra Leone have
fundamentally changed such that Kamara’s fear that he will
be persecuted if returned to that country is no longer well
founded. See Jalloh v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 148, 151 (2d Cir.
2007) (finding that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s
finding that country conditions in Sierra Leone had changed
with the conclusion of the civil war). As the agency found,
the U.S. Department of State’s 2007 Country Report on Human
Rights Practices for Sierra Leone (“2007 Country Report”)
indicated that “[i]n 2002, the devastating 11-year civil war
officially ended, and the government, backed by a United
Nations peacekeeping force (UNAMSIL), asserted control over
the whole country.” Moreover, the agency reasonably
determined that the evidence in the record confirmed that
the Revolutionary United Front (“RUF”) rebel group had been
disarmed, demobilized, and disbanded, as the 2007 Country
Report indicated that “[d]uring the year the remaining
combatants who fought for the RUF, the rebel group that
started the country’s 11-year civil war . . . were sentenced
to death and were on death row at year’s end.”
3
Kumara argues that “even if the RUF rebels have
disbanded, they possibly still live in the community and are
dangerous to someone like [him] who witnessed many
atrocities.” Kamara’s argument is unavailing, however, as
there is no evidence in the record that the RUF rebel group
at whose hands Kamara testified he had suffered remains
active in Sierra Leone, or that former RUF members continue
to target civilians. Accordingly, the agency reasonably
concluded that record evidence that the civil war had ended
and combatants were disarmed and disbanded established a
fundamental change in country conditions and rebutted
Kamara’s claim to a well-founded fear of future persecution.
See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1); Passi v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 98,
101 (2d Cir. 2008).
As the agency’s finding of changed country conditions
is supported by the record and is dispositive of Kamara’s
asylum claim, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(A), we need
not reach the agency’s alternative adverse-credibility and
nexus findings.
Because Kamara was unable to show the objective
likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum
claim, he was necessarily unable to meet the higher standard
required to demonstrate his eligibility for withholding of
removal and CAT relief. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148,
4
156 (2d Cir. 2006); Gomez v. INS, 947 F.2d 660, 665 (2d Cir.
1991).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, Kamara’s January
7, 2011 motion for a stay of removal in this petition is
DISMISSED as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5