Simpore v. Holder

10-3540-ag
Simpore v. Holder
BIA
Weisel, IJ
A089 253 916
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 22nd day of February, two thousand twelve.
PRESENT:
JON O. NEWMAN,
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
LASSANE SIMPORE,
Petitioner,
v. 10-3540-ag
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, N.Y.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,
Assistant Director; Joanna L.
Watson, Trial Attorney, 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 Lassane Simpore, a native and citizen of
Burkina Faso, seeks review of an August 6, 2010 order of
the BIA, affirming the October 29, 2008 decision of
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel, which denied his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lassane
Simpore, No. A089 253 916 (B.I.A. Aug. 6, 2010), aff’g No.
No. A089 253 916 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 29, 2008). We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
and procedural history of the case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of
completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.
2008). The applicable standards of review are
well-established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng
v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
Having reviewed the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions, we
conclude that substantial evidence supports the
2
determination that Simpore failed to meet his burden of
establishing a well-founded fear of future persecution based
on a protected ground. As noted by the IJ, it was
“reasonable to expect the Burkina Faso military to detain
[Simpore] for questioning, regarding involvement in the
unauthorized confiscation of vehicles.” See Long v. Holder,
620 F.3d 162, 166 (2d Cir. 2010) (“As a rule, the
enforcement of generally applicable law cannot be said to be
on account of the offender’s political opinion, even if the
offender objects to the law.”). Moreover, while the IJ
found Simpore to be credible, other than Simpore’s testimony
that he had “heard” that some individuals were missing or in
a military prison, there was no evidence that those who had
been arrested in connection with the alleged illegal
activity were ever persecuted.
As to the specific arguments raised by Simpore on
appeal –- (1) that the IJ failed to consider his fear of
extended detention and (2) that he was persecuted on account
of an imputed political opinion -- we decline to consider
these arguments since they were never raised before the BIA.
See Karaj v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 113, 121 (2d Cir. 2006)
(noting that an alien appealing an IJ’s decision to the BIA
3
has an “obligation to explain why the IJ’s decision was
wrong”); Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir. 2004) (“To
preserve a claim, we require ‘[p]etitioner to raise issues
to the BIA in order to preserve them for judicial review.’”)
(emphasis in original).
Similarly, Simpore’s conclusory assertion that the
evidence in the record supports his claim for CAT relief is
insufficient to raise the issue in this Court. Yueqing
Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir.
2005).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4