Alfalahi v. Holder ( 2011 )

10-2818-ag
Alfalahi v. Holder
BIA
Van Wyke, IJ
A093 124 505
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
New York, on the 17th day of November, two thousand eleven.
PRESENT:
RALPH K. WINTER,
REENA RAGGI,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
AZIZ HADI AHMED ALFALAHI,
Petitioner,
v. 10-2818-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Joshua Bardavid, New York, New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; James E. Grimes, Senior
Litigation Counsel; Lindsay B.
Glauner, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for
review is DENIED.
Aziz Hadi Ahmed Alfalahi, a native and citizen of
Yemen, seeks review of a June 18, 2010 decision of the BIA
affirming the July 23, 2008 decision of immigration judge
(“IJ”) William Van Wyke, pretermitting his application for
asylum as untimely and denying his applications for
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Aziz Hadi Ahmed Alfalahi,
No. A093 124 505 (B.I.A. June 18, 2010), aff’g No. A093 124
505 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. July 23, 2008). We assume the
parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
procedural history of this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
both the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514
F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). We review the agency’s
factual findings for substantial evidence, treating those
findings as conclusive unless a reasonable adjudicator would
be compelled to conclude to the contrary, and review
questions of law de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
2
We identify no error in the agency’s determination that
Alfalahi failed to establish his eligibility for withholding
of removal or CAT relief.1 The IJ’s explicit discussion of
the U.S. Department of State reports in the record does not
suggest that he ignored other evidence cited by Alfalahi,
namely, internet articles noting that relatives of Al-Houthi
supporters had been detained. See Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d
138, 169 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting that agency not required to
“expressly parse or refute” each “piece of evidence offered”
by petitioner (internal quotation marks omitted)). Indeed,
the IJ noted that “somebody associated with the Al-Houthis
may indeed run a risk that” others do not, but nonetheless
determined that Alfalahi’s “tangential relation” to Al-
Houthis, who have a predominantly political dispute with the
Yemeni government, did not demonstrate a clear probability
that Alfalahi would be persecuted because of his Shi’a
religion. In re Aziz Hadi Ahmed Alfalahi, No. A093 124 505
(Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. July 23, 2008). This determination was
supported by substantial evidence, including the State
Department reports.
1
Alfalahi does not here challenge the agency’s
pretermission of his asylum claim.
3
Moreover, the BIA did not engage in impermissible fact-
finding in determining that the articles Alfalahi cited were
not materially different from the State Department reports
that the IJ explicitly considered. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(d)(3)(i)-(ii) (stating that BIA reviews IJ’s fact
finding under “clearly erroneous” standard but “may review
questions of law, discretion, and judgment and all other
issues . . . de novo”); see also Padmore v. Holder, 609 F.3d
62, 69 (2d Cir. 2010) (providing that BIA may consider all
record evidence, but “must remand to the IJ” if it
“concludes that findings should be made” regarding truth of
matters asserted in evidence).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2) and Second
Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4