Diarra v. Sessions

16-3518 Diarra v. Sessions BIA Schoppert, IJ A205 016 867 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 1st day of March, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ALY DIARRA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3518 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Benjamin Mark 27 Moss, Trial Attorney; Timothy Bo 28 Stanton, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Aly Diarra, a native and citizen of Mali, 6 seeks review of a September 22, 2016, decision of the BIA 7 affirming a July 17, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge 8 (“IJ”) denying Diarra’s application for asylum, withholding 9 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Aly Diarra, No. A 205 016 867 (B.I.A. Sept. 11 22, 2016), aff’g No. A 205 016 867(Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 12 17, 2015). 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, i.e., minus the corroboration ruling on which the BIA 16 declined to rely. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 17 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 18 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 19 § 1252(b)(4); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d 20 Cir. 2009). 21 To obtain asylum, Diarra had the burden to establish past 22 persecution or an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of 23 future persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. 2 1 § 1208.13(a), (b); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 154 (2d 2 Cir. 2006). “[P]ersecution is the infliction of suffering 3 or harm ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals