Ntem-Mensah v. Sessions ( 2018 )

16-1184-ag
Ntem-Mensah v. Sessions
BIA
Straus, IJ
A096 524 547
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
23rd day of October, two thousand eighteen.
Present:
JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
GUIDO CALABRESI,
DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
NANA KWABENA OBONOMA NTEM-MENSAH,
Petitioner,
v. 16-1184-ag
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
For Petitioner: JUSTIN CONLON, Hartford, CT.
For Respondent: ANTHONY W. NORWOOD (Chad A. Readler, Leslie
McKay, on the brief) Office of Immigration Litigation,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the
petition for review is DENIED.
Petitioner Nana Kwabena Obonoma Ntem-Mensah, a native and citizen of the Republic of
Ghana, seeks review of a March 22, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a March 14, 2014,
decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ntem-Mensah’s application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Nana
Kwabena Obonoma Ntem-Mensah, No. A096 524 547 (B.I.A. Mar. 22, 2016), aff’g No. A096 524
547 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Mar. 14, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by
the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Given
this scope of review and because Ntem-Mensah challenges only the denial of withholding of
removal, review is limited to whether the agency erred in concluding that he failed to demonstrate
that it was more likely than not that he would suffer persecution. The applicable standards of
review are well established; “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Su Chun
Hu v. Holder, 579 F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 2009).
To qualify for withholding of removal, an alien must demonstrate that “it is more likely
than not” that he will suffer persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion if returned to his native country. Ramsameachire v.
Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004); see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). An alien like Ntem-
Mensah who does not claim past persecution has the burden to prove that it is more likely than not
that he would suffer persecution in the future, i.e., that there is a “clear probability” of persecution.
2
Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 143 (2d Cir. 2008); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(iii).
The agency did not err in finding that Ntem-Mensah failed to meet this burden. “In the
absence of solid support in the record . . . , [an applicant’s] fear [of persecution] is speculative at
best.” Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005). The evidence that Ntem-
Mensah submitted—news articles, a State Department report, and four sworn letters from relatives
or associates in Ghana—does not constitute “solid support” for the claim that he is likely to become
involved in a chieftancy dispute, much less that he is likely to be persecuted as a result.
Ntem-Mensah submitted three news articles—a 2013 article documenting a chieftaincy
conflict in the Volta region; an article reporting reconciliation between chiefs in the Buem
constituency; and an article reporting that police have helped to manage communal conflicts in the
Volta area. These articles may attest to the existence of chieftaincy disputes in the Volta region,
where Ntem-Mensah is from, but they provide no support for the central proposition at issue: that
Ntem-Mensah himself is likely to be involved in a chieftaincy dispute and to suffer persecution.
Ntem-Mensah also submitted the 2010 State Department report on Ghana, which identifies violent
chieftaincy disputes, including one in the Volta region, and notes that perpetrators of this violence
have been arrested. But as the agency reasoned, this evidence does not provide solid support for
Ntem-Mensah’s claim.
Ntem-Mensah also submitted four letters supposedly to confirm his place as his father’s
successor and to attest that he is in danger because other family members or factions are interested
in assuming power and taking his valuable land. But none of these letters recounts any threats to
Ntem-Mensah’s life, identifies specific individuals or factions who pose a threat, or even provides
specifics as to the immense wealth over which family members are at odds. The BIA found that
Ntem-Mensah’s letters were “general in nature and not sufficient to establish that he faces a clear
probability of future harm.” Joint App. 2. We have no grounds to disturb that reasoned
3
determination. See Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We defer to the agency’s
determination of the weight afforded to an alien’s documentary 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