Qamar v. Lynch ( 2016 )

15-244
Qamar v. Lynch
BIA
Bain, IJ
A074 909 939
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 for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
4 14th day of November, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 FAROOQ QAMAR,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 15-244
17 NAC
18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Amy Nussbaum Gell, New York, NY.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
26 Assistant Attorney General; Leslie
27 McKay, Assistant Director; Melissa
28 K. Lott, 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 is
4 DENIED.
5 Petitioner Farooq Qamar, a native and citizen of Pakistan,
6 seeks review of a December 31, 2014, decision of the BIA
7 affirming a March 11, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge
8 (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C.
9 § 1231(b)(3), withholding of removal under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”), and adjustment of status. In re
11 Farooq Qamar, No. A074 909 939 (B.I.A. Dec. 31, 2014), aff’g
12 No. A074 909 939 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 11, 2013). We assume
13 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both
16 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.”
17 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.
18 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
19 established. See Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 164-65 (2d
20 Cir. 2004). The agency did not err in finding Qamar barred from
21 asylum, withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and
22 withholding of removal under the CAT, based on his admission
2
1 that he assisted his uncle, who was an international drug
2 trafficker, in packing and holding a shipment of heroin in
3 Pakistan.
4 The agency must deny asylum and withholding of removal, if
5 “there are serious reasons for believing that the alien has
6 committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United
7 States prior to the arrival of the alien in the United States.”
8 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii); see also 8 U.S.C.
9 § 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2). “The serious
10 reasons to believe standard is the equivalent of probable
11 cause.” Guo Qi Wang v. Holder, 583 F.3d 86, 90 (2d Cir. 2009)
12 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). In
13 determining whether a crime is serious, the agency considers
14 “the alien’s description of the crime, the turpitudinous nature
15 of the crime according to [the BIA’s] precedents, the value of
16 any property involved, the length of sentence imposed and
17 served, and the usual punishments imposed for comparable
18 offenses in the United States.” Matter of Ballester-Garcia,
19 17 I. & N. Dec. 592, 595 (B.I.A. 1980).
20 Given that Qamar admitted to packing and holding a shipment
21 of heroin, which were not political acts, the only issue in
22 Qamar’s case is whether those acts constituted a serious crime.
3
1 See Guo Qi Wang, 583 F.3d at 91 (finding the “serious reasons
2 for believing” standard satisfied based on applicant’s
3 admission). The agency reasonably concluded that they did,
4 noting BIA precedent treating drug trafficking as an inherently
5 serious crime. See In re Y-L-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 270, 275 (B.I.A.
6 2002). Furthermore, as the agency noted, aiding and abetting
7 the unlawful distribution of heroin is a felony under U.S. law.
8 See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3559(a); 21 U.S.C. §§ 812(c), 841.
9 Qamar argues that the agency erred in finding his acts a
10 serious crime without considering that he was only 16 or 17 years
11 old at the time or that cultural and familial pressures
12 prevented him from refusing to assist his uncle. There is no
13 merit to this argument. First, the agency explicitly
14 considered these factors. Second, as the agency noted, a
15 juvenile who is alleged to have committed a drug trafficking
16 offense while over the age of 15 may be prosecuted as an adult
17 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5032, and Qamar testified that his family
18 did not pressure him to participate in their drug business.
19 Accordingly, given Qamar’s admission of acts that amount to a
20 felony drug trafficking offense, the agency did not err in
21 finding that he was barred from asylum and withholding of
22 removal for having committed a serious nonpolitical crime
4
1 before his arrival in the United States. See 8 U.S.C.
2 §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii); 8 C.F.R.
3 § 1208.16(d)(2); Guo Qi Wang, 583 F.3d at 90; Matter of
4 Ballester-Garcia, 17 I. & N. Dec. at 595.
5 We do not consider the agency’s denial of adjustment of
6 status because Qamar fails to adequately challenge the agency’s
7 decision to that extent. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426
8 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (declining to consider a claim
9 as abandoned when petitioner “devote[d] only a single
10 conclusory sentence to the argument”).
11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
12 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
13 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
14 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
15 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
16 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
17 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
18 34.1(b).
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5