21-6187 Yapo v. Garland BIA Sponzo, IJ A201 123 436 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 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 25th day of July, two thousand twenty- three. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, SUSAN L. CARNEY, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ PRIVAT YAPO, Petitioner, v. 21-6187 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, Esq., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel; Enitan O. Otunla, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 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. Petitioner Privat Yapa, a native and citizen of the Ivory Coast, seeks review of a March 4, 2021 decision of the BIA, affirming a July 26, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Privat Yapo, No. A 201 123 436 (B.I.A. Mar. 4, 2021), aff’g No. A 201 123 436 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City July 26, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review questions of law de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 2 contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). To obtain asylum, an applicant must establish “past persecution” or “a well- founded fear of future persecution” on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b);8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Where, as here, an asylum applicant does not allege past harm, he has the burden to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding that “a well-founded fear of future persecution . . . requires that the alien present credible testimony that he subjectively fears persecution …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals