Kotb v. Holder , 419 F. App'x 131 ( 2011 )

10-1783-ag
Kotb v. Holder
BIA
Abrams, IJ
A096 429 585
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.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 19th day of April, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
8 JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,
9 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 KARIM KOTB, a/k/a KARIM EMAD DESSOUKY KOTB,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-1783-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Samy Beshay, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant
27 Director; Allen W. Hausman, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, Civil
30 Division, United States Department
31 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
3 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
4 review is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Karim Kotb, a native and citizen of Egypt,
6 seeks review of an April 6, 2010, decision of the BIA
7 affirming the November 15, 2007, decision of Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams denying Kotb’s applications
9 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Karim Kotb, No.
11 A096 429 585 (B.I.A. Apr. 6, 2010), aff’g No. A096 429 585
12 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 15, 2007). We assume the
13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history of the case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review “both
16 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions ‘for the sake of
17 completeness.’” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d
18 Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (quoting Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d
19 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006)). The applicable standards of
20 review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
21 see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.
22 2009).
2
1 We find no error in the agency's determination that
2 Kotb failed to demonstrate his eligibility for withholding
3 of removal. “In the absence of solid support in the record
4 for [an applicant’s] assertion that he will be [persecuted],
5 his fear is speculative at best.” Jian Xing Huang v. INS,
6 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Because Kotb
7 did not submit any evidence in support of his contention
8 that the Egyptian government will harm him based on its
9 alleged belief that he works for the CIA, the agency did not
10 err in finding his claimed fear speculative and insufficient
11 to establish his eligibility for withholding of removal.
12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
13 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
14 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
15 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
16 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
17 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
18 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
19 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
20 FOR THE COURT:
21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
22
23
3