Ramos-Orellana v. Holder , 476 F. App'x 940 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •          10-5183-ag
    Ramos-Orellana v. Holder
    BIA
    Straus, IJ
    A070 953 368
    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 24th day of April, two thousand twelve.
    5
    6       PRESENT:
    7                JON O. NEWMAN,
    8                ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
    9                DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
    10                    Circuit Judges.
    11       _____________________________________
    12
    13       OSCAR ANIBAL RAMOS-ORELLANA, AKA
    14       OSCAR RAMOS,
    15                Petitioner,
    16
    17                           v.                                 10-5183-ag
    18                                                              NAC
    19       ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
    20       ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    21                Respondent.
    22       _______________________________________
    23
    24       FOR PETITIONER:                 Jon E. Jessen, Stamford,
    25                                       Connecticut.
    26
    27       FOR RESPONDENT:                 Tony West, Assistant Attorney
    28                                       General; Jamie M. Dowd, Senior
    29                                       Litigation Counsel; Jeffery R.
    30                                       Leist, Attorney, Office of
    1                             Immigration Litigation, United
    2                             States Department of Justice,
    3                             Washington, D.C.
    4
    5       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
    6   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
    7   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review
    8   is DENIED.
    9       Petitioner Oscar Anibal Ramos-Orellana, a native and
    10   citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a November 23, 2010,
    11   order of the BIA, affirming the June 15, 2009, decision of
    12   Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Michael W. Straus, which denied his
    13   application for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under
    14   the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and relief under the
    15   Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of
    16   1997 (“NACARA”).     In re Ramos-Orellana, No. A070 953 368
    17   (B.I.A. Nov. 23, 2010), aff’g No. A070 953 368 (Immig. Ct.
    18   Hartford June 15, 2009).    We assume the parties’ familiarity
    19   with the underlying facts and procedural history in this
    20   case.
    21       Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
    22   both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
    23   completeness.”     Zaman v. Mukasey, 
    514 F.3d 233
    , 237 (2d Cir.
    24   2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).    The applicable
    25   standards of review are well-established.     See 
    8 U.S.C. § 2
    1   1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 
    562 F.3d 510
    , 513 (2d
    2   Cir. 2009).
    3       As an initial matter, Ramos-Orellana challenges only
    4   the agency’s determination that he failed to show past
    5   persecution based on forced conscription into the army and
    6   that he would likely be persecuted or tortured if returned
    7   to Guatemala for his desertion from the army.   The agency’s
    8   determination that Ramos-Orellana failed to demonstrate that
    9   his forced conscription constitutes past persecution is
    10   supported by substantial evidence.   See Islami v. Gonzales,
    11   
    412 F.3d 391
    , 396-97 (2d Cir. 2005), overruled in part on
    12   other grounds by Shi Liang Lin v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 494
    
    13 F.3d 296
    , 305 (2d Cir. 2007); 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (b)(4)(B).
    14   While we have held that forced military service (or
    15   punishment for draft evasion) may constitute persecution
    16   where: (1) “an individual’s refusal to serve in the military
    17   leads to disproportionately excessive penalties, inflicted
    18   on him or her” on account of a protected ground; or (2) an
    19   individual “is fleeing to avoid punishment for refusing to
    20   join a military force condemned by the international
    21   community,” Islami, 
    412 F.3d at 396
     (internal quotation
    22   marks omitted), as the agency noted, Ramos-Orellana failed
    23   to present any evidence showing that he was asked to commit
    3
    1   human rights abuses against members of his own race,
    2   religion, nationality, or social or political group; that he
    3   objected to doing so; or that army leadership ever knew of
    4   any such objection.    Moreover, in finding that
    5   Ramos-Orellana failed to establish that he would be singled
    6   out for excessive penalties as a result of his desertion,
    7   the agency reasonably relied on his testimony that he was
    8   not treated differently than his fellow soldiers while he
    9   served, as well as the fact that 75% of all conscripted
    10   soldiers deserted the Guatemalan Army during the same
    11   period.   See 
    id.
    12       The agency also reasonably determined that
    13   Ramos-Orellana failed to show that it is more likely than
    14   not that he would be persecuted or tortured if returned to
    15   Guatemala due to his desertion from the army.       See 8 U.S.C.
    16   § 1252(b)(4)(B).    Although Ramos-Orellana argues that the
    17   agency improperly discredited his evidence of country
    18   conditions and placed excessive reliance on the U.S. State
    19   Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices in
    20   Guatemala (“Country Reports”), the task of resolving
    21   conflicts in the record evidence lies “largely within the
    22   discretion of the agency.”    Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546
    
    23 F.3d 138
    , 171 (2d Cir. 2008).       In evaluating
    4
    1   Ramos-Orellana’s evidence of country conditions, the agency
    2   reasonably noted that the more recent Country Reports do not
    3   indicate that former army deserters are targeted for
    4   persecution or death.   See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of
    5   Justice, 
    434 F.3d 144
    , 164 (2d Cir. 2006) (recognizing that
    6   “a report from the State Department is usually the best
    7   available source of information on country conditions”)
    8   (internal quotation marks omitted).
    9       Lastly, Ramos-Orellana’s argument that the agency erred
    10   in failing to make an explicit credibility finding is
    11   without merit, as the agency assumed credibility and its
    12   decision does not hinge on Ramos-Orellana’s credibility.
    13   See Mendez v. Holder, 
    566 F.3d 316
    , 318 (2d Cir. 2009).
    14       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
    15   DENIED.
    16
    17                               FOR THE COURT:
    18                               Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    19
    20
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-5183-ag

Citation Numbers: 476 F. App'x 940

Judges: Newman, Pooler, Livingston

Filed Date: 4/24/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024