Bouba v. Holder , 360 F. App'x 221 ( 2010 )

09-0259-ag
Bouba v. Holder
BIA
Weisel, IJ
A079 572 470
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 12 th day of January, two thousand ten.
PRESENT:
JON O. NEWMAN,
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
Circuit Judges.
______________________________________
HAMEDOU BOUBA,
Petitioner,
v. 09-0259-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL, 1 ET AL.,
Respondents.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Brian I. Kaplan, New York, N.Y.
1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is
automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General
Mark Filip as a respondent in this case.
FOR RESPONDENTS: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant
Director; Scott Rempell, 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 in part and DISMISSED in part.
Hamedou Bouba, a native and citizen of Mauritania,
seeks review of a December 18, 2008 order of the BIA
affirming the April 17, 2007 decision of Immigration Judge
(“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel, which denied his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hamedou Bouba,
No. A079 572 470 (B.I.A. Dec. 18, 2008), aff’g No. A079 572
470 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 17, 2007). We assume the
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both
the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
2008). The applicable standards of review are well-
established. Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir.
2
2008); Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.
2008).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion
that, due to changed country conditions in the 18 years
since Bouba was expelled from Mauritania, his fear of future
persecution is not well-founded. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(A). The
agency supported its finding of a fundamental change in
circumstances in Mauritania by noting that the 2006 U.S.
Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices
in Mauritania indicated that the president of Mauritania was
overthrown in 2005, and that “[m]any returnees received
their original homes, some property, and all or a portion of
their land.” Importantly, the agency supplemented that
finding with evidence and analysis particular to Bouba’s
case. See Tambadou v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 298, 303 (2d Cir.
2006). For example, the IJ noted that while the 2006 Report
indicated that some returnees had not received
identification cards upon their return, Bouba was able to
obtain his identification card when he returned to
Mauritania in 1996. The agency also acknowledged that when
Bouba returned, he was threatened by the individuals who had
taken his property, but was not harmed, and had no
3
difficulty with the Mauritanian authorities.
Ultimately, the IJ found that although the record
contained evidence of continuing racial discrimination in
Mauritania, that evidence was insufficient to suggest that
the persecutory policies of the previous government were
ongoing such that Bouba reasonably feared future
persecution. 2 See Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193, 196 (2d Cir.
2009).
Because the agency’s finding that Bouba did not have a
well-founded fear of persecution was supported by
substantial evidence, it did not err in denying his claims
for asylum and withholding of removal because both claims
shared the same factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006). Finally, we are without
jurisdiction to address the IJ’s denial of Bouba’s CAT
claim, because he failed to exhaust his challenge to the
denial of that relief before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d); Karaj v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 113, 119 (2d Cir.
2006).
2
Although Bouba states generally that a letter he
submitted to the BIA supports his claim, he does not
challenge the BIA’s refusal to remand the case for
consideration of this new evidence, waiving any such
challenge. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545
n.7 (2d Cir. 2005); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv).
4
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. As we have completed
our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this
petition is DISMISSED as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
By:___________________________
5