Verma v. Holder ( 2014 )

13-2985
Verma v. Holder
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A098 477 816
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 Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 17th day of December, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 MEENA VERMA, AKA CHARANJIT KAUR,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-2985
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Amy Nussbaum Gell, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
26 General; William C. Peachey,
27 Assistant Director; Daniel E.
28 Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel,
29 Office of Immigration Litigation,
30 United States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, D.C.
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 Meena Verma, a native and citizen of India, seeks
6 review of the July 22, 2013, decision of the BIA affirming
7 the August 30, 2011, decision of the Immigration Judge
8 (“IJ”), which denied her application for withholding of
9 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture
10 (“CAT”). In re Meena Verma, No. A098 477 816 (B.I.A. July
11 22, 2013), aff’g No. A098 477 816 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug.
12 30, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
13 underlying facts and procedural history.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
15 the IJ's decision as modified by the BIA decision. See Xue
16 Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d
17 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well
18 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.
19 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
20 Absent past persecution, an applicant for withholding
21 of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) must show that it is
22 more likely than not that she will be persecuted on account
23 of her “race, religion, nationality, membership in a
2
1 particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 C.F.R.
2 § 1208.16(b)(1); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169,
3 178 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, we detect no error in the
4 agency’s determination that Verma failed to demonstrate a
5 likelihood of persecution as required to establish her
6 eligibility for withholding of removal.
7 “While consistent, detailed, and credible testimony may
8 be sufficient to carry the alien’s burden, evidence
9 corroborating h[er] story, or an explanation for its
10 absence, may be required where it would reasonably be
11 expected.” Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 285-86 (2d Cir.
12 2000). The agency appropriately found that corroboration
13 was necessary in this case because Verma’s claim was based
14 on substantially the same facts as her husband’s claim,
15 which was deemed not credible in his separate removal
16 proceeding. See id. The agency afforded no weight to her
17 husband’s statements, see Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of
18 Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 2006), observed that her
19 background evidence did not specifically address her
20 situation, and considered her failure to produce available
21 corroboration in the form of letters from friends or family,
22 see Diallo, 232 F.3d at 285-87. These rulings were
23 reasonable.
3
1 The agency also reasonably discounted the likelihood of
2 future persecution on the grounds that: her account of
3 evading police during her husband's alleged arrests (she
4 moved to another room) was implausible; one of her similarly
5 situated sons continues to live in India unharmed; and she
6 failed to show that police would look for her if she
7 returned. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313
8 (2d Cir. 1999) (evidence showing family continued to live
9 safely in country of origin “cuts against” claim of future
10 harm based on family relationship); see also Jian Xing Huang
11 v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (providing that a
12 fear is not objectively reasonable if it lacks “solid
13 support” in the record and is merely “speculative at
14 best.”). The agency’s findings that she failed to provide
15 sufficient corroboration or demonstrate a likelihood of
16 persecution were dispositive of withholding of removal and
17 CAT relief because those claims were based on the same
18 factual predicate. See Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156-
19 57 (2d Cir. 2006).
20 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
21 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
22 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
4
1 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
2 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
3 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
4 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
5 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
6 FOR THE COURT:
7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
8
9
10
5