Turkman v. Holder , 538 F. App'x 120 ( 2013 )

12-722
Turkman v. Holder
BIA
Verrillo, IJ
A089 843 491
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 5th day of November, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 Chief Judge,
9 RALPH K. WINTER,
10 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
11 Circuit Judges.
12
13 _____________________________________
14
15 ISMAIL TURKMAN,
16 Petitioner,
17
18 v. 12-722
19 NAC
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 _____________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Justin Conlon, North Haven, CT.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
28 Attorney General; Daniel E. Goldman,
29 Senior Litigation Counsel; Jonathan
1 Robbins, Trial Attorney, Office of
2 Immigration Litigation, United
3 States Department of Justice,
4 Washington, D.C.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioner Ismail Turkman, a native and citizen of
11 Turkey, seeks review of a January 26, 2012, order of the
12 BIA, affirming a January 11, 2010, decision of Immigration
13 Judge (“IJ”) Philip Verrillo, denying his application for
14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ismail Turkman,
16 No. A089 843 491 (B.I.A. Jan. 26, 2012), aff’g No. A089 843
17 491 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Jan. 11, 2010). We assume the
18 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
19 procedural history in this case.
20 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
21 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
22 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
23 2008). The applicable standards of review are
24 well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng
25 v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
2
1 Turkman an ethnic Turk, argues that he suffered past
2 persecution in Turkey, and faces future persecution as a
3 result of his forcible recruitment by a Kurdish separatist
4 group. He claims he was targeted and persecuted on account
5 of his membership in several particular social groups.
6 Turkman testified that he did not know why the Kurdish group
7 asked him to join, except expand their size. The IJ
8 concluded that recruitment to augment the group’s size does
9 not establish eligibility for asylum. See INS v. Elias-
10 Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83 (1992); Rodas Castro v.
11 Holder, 597 F.3d 93, 104 (2d Cir. 2010).
12 The IJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence
13 and do not indicate that the IJ mischaracterized or ignored
14 the record evidence. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of
15 Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 338 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006); Wei Guang
16 Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006).
17 The BIA expressed “agreement” with the IJ that the
18 particular social groups proposed by Turkman are not legally
19 cognizable for purposes of the asylum statute. That is
20 likely error because the IJ did not make such a finding.
21 However, no remand is required because the BIA recited an
22 “alternative and sufficient basis” for its decision: that
3
1 Turkman did not establish persecution “on account of” any
2 such membership. Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428
3 F.3d 391, 401 (2d Cir. 2005).
4 Turkman also argues that he faces persecution by the
5 Turkish government because they will perceive him as a
6 sympathizer or supporter of the Kurdish group that recruited
7 him. However, as the IJ noted Turkman had not been harmed
8 by the Turkish government and had not reported any of his
9 interactions with the Kurdish group to the authorities. See
10 Chun Gao v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 2005)
11 (describing imputed political opinion claims). Turkman
12 argues that the Turkish government persecutes suspected
13 Kurdish rebels and sympathizers, he offers nothing but his
14 speculation that the government employed undercover agents
15 and might harm him if they thought he belonged to the
16 Kurdish group who unsuccessfully tried to recruited him.
17 See Jian Wen Wang v. BCIS, 437 F.3d 276, 278 (2d Cir. 2006)
18 (speculative claims of future persecution do not establish
19 eligibility for asylum). Accordingly, the agency did not
20 err in denying Turkman’s applications for asylum or
21 withholding of removal. See Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111,
22 119 (2d Cir. 2010). Turkman does not challenge the agency’s
4
1 denial of his application for protection under the CAT.
2 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
3 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
4 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
5 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
6 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
7 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
8 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
9 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
12
13
5