Veckovic v. Holder

12-2268
Veckovic v. Holder
BIA
Bain, IJ
A099 320 129
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 24th day of September, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 JON O. NEWMAN,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 IVAN VECKOVIC,
14 Petitioner,
15 12-2268
16 v. NAC
17
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Saul C. Brown, New York, New York.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Leslie McKay,
27 Assistant Director; Anthony J.
28 Messuri, Trial Attorney, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, Civil
30 Division, United States Department
31 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
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
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner, Ivan Veckovic, a native of the former
6 Yugoslavia and citizen of Croatia, seeks review of a May 4,
7 2012, decision of the BIA affirming the October 12, 2010,
8 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Terry A. Bain, denying
9 his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
10 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re
11 Ivan Veckovic, No. A099 320 129 (B.I.A. May 4, 2012), aff’g
12 No. A099 320 129 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 12, 2010). We
13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
14 and procedural history of the case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan
17 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
18 applicable standards of review are well-established. See
19 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d
20 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Because Veckovic does not
21 challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief, we have
22 reviewed only the denial of asylum and withholding of
23 removal.
2
1 Veckovic argues that the IJ erred by finding that he
2 failed to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded
3 fear of future persecution based on his Serbian ethnicity.
4 Although Veckovic was assaulted, verbally harassed, and
5 subjected to property damage,, we find no error in the IJ’s
6 determination that the harm Veckovic endured did not rise to
7 the level of persecution because he was not detained during
8 these incidents, and the harm he suffered was relatively
9 minor. See Jian Qiu Liu v. Holder, 632 F.3d 820, 822 (2d
10 Cir. 2011) (holding that a beating which occurred prior to
11 detention, “required no formal medical attention and had no
12 lasting physical effect” did not rise to the level of
13 persecution).
14 To demonstrate a well-founded fear of future
15 persecution, an asylum applicant must show either: (1) that
16 he suffered past persecution; or (2) a fear of future
17 persecution because he “would be singled out individually
18 for persecution” or because there exists in his country “a
19 pattern or practice . . . of persecution of a group of
20 persons similarly situated to [him].” 8 C.F.R.
21 §§ 1208.13(b)(2), 1208.16(b)(2). The IJ reasonably found
22 that Veckovic failed to establish an objectively reasonable
23 basis for fearing future persecution in Croatia.
3
1 The State Department report described widespread
2 discrimination against ethnic Serbs, including some
3 incidents of violence. However, as the IJ found, there was
4 no evidence that the Croatian government was unwilling or
5 unable to protect Veckovic, given: (1) Veckovic’s testimony
6 that the police helped to investigate the incident in which
7 he was attacked; and (2) the report’s indication that
8 Croatian authorities had identified, arrested, and
9 prosecuted other individuals who perpetrated acts of
10 violence against ethnic Serbs. Accordingly, the IJ did not
11 err in finding that Veckovic failed to establish his
12 eligibility for asylum. See id.; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
13 Having failed to show the objective likelihood of
14 persecution needed to make out an asylum claim, Veckovic was
15 necessarily unable to meet the higher standard required to
16 succeed on a claim for withholding of removal. See Gomez v.
17 INS, 947 F.2d 660, 665 (2d Cir. 1991).
18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
19 DENIED. As we have completed our review, petitioner’s pending
20 motion for a stay of removal is DENIED as moot.
21 FOR THE COURT:
22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4