Otgonbat Serjeedorj v. Jeff Sessions

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 17a0148n.06
Nos. 15-4333/16-3421
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
Mar 07, 2017
OTGONBAT SERJEEDORJ, )
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
)
Petitioner, )
) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES
) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
JEFF B. SESSIONS, U.S. Attorney General, ) APPEALS
)
Respondent. )
)
BEFORE: KEITH, BATCHELDER, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Otgonbat Serjeedorj, a citizen of Mongolia, petitions through counsel
for review of two orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
Serjeedorj was born in Mongolia in 1977. He came to this country in 1999 to play in a
baseball competition and overstayed his visa. He has been working as a truck driver and has
three United States citizen children. When placed in removal proceedings, he applied for
asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and
voluntary departure.
A hearing was held before an immigration judge (IJ), at which Serjeedorj testified that he
had been a player/coach for a Mongolian government baseball team that was supported by the
Japanese government. However, he learned through rumors that the money the Japanese
Nos. 15-4333\16-3421, Serjeedorj v. Sessions
intended for the team was being used by team management for personal gain. He protested this
corruption, and also other government corruption of an undisclosed nature. This resulted in his
being arrested in January and May of 1999. On the first occasion, his parents bailed him out the
same day. On the second occasion, Serjeedorj testified he was beaten by the police, lost
consciousness, and woke up in the hospital later that evening. He testified that he was beaten
“almost to death.” His injuries included a broken tooth, a broken wrist and finger, and swelling
and bruising to his face. He was taken to jail after he woke up and held overnight until his
parents again secured his release. Serjeedorj claimed to fear persecution or torture based on his
opposition to government corruption. When questioned about his application for voluntary
departure, he equivocated about whether he could raise the money to post bond and indicated
that he would not want to return to Mongolia, but he did not know of any other country he could
go to without a visa. The IJ determined that the asylum application was untimely and that
Serjeedorj had also failed to establish eligibility for asylum, withholding, or CAT protection due
to the failure to establish the likelihood of persecution or torture, and based on his lack of
credibility and failure to corroborate his claims. Voluntary departure was also denied based on
Serjeedorj’s failure to convince the IJ that he would leave the country.
Serjeedorj appealed to the BIA, which did not uphold the IJ’s finding that Serjeedorj’s
testimony was not credible, concluding that he only exaggerated the extent of his injuries from
the alleged beating. However, the BIA agreed that Serjeedorj had not established eligibility for
any of the requested relief. Serjeedorj appealed that decision in Case No. 15-4333. The appeal
was held in abeyance while Serjeedorj moved to reopen his case before the BIA. The BIA
denied that motion, and Serjeedorj petitioned for review of that order in Case No. 16-3421. We
granted Serjeedorj permission to proceed in forma pauperis.
-2-
Nos. 15-4333\16-3421, Serjeedorj v. Sessions
In his brief, Serjeedorj does not challenge the denial of his asylum application or the
denial of his motion for reopening. He does reassert his claims for withholding of removal,
protection under the CAT, and voluntary departure. He also argues that the BIA erred in
considering his first appeal with a single judge rather than three judges, that he was not given the
opportunity to supply required corroboration or explain its absence, and, finally, that the court
should facilitate his return if he is removed during the pendency of this review and his petition
for review is granted.
The claims for asylum and reopening have been abandoned and will not be reviewed.
See Hachem v. Holder, 656 F.3d 430, 434 (6th Cir. 2011). Serjeedorj states in a conclusory
fashion that his original appeal should have been considered by a panel of judges rather than a
single judge. Having shown no prejudice resulting from this alleged error, he is not entitled to
any relief. See Vasha v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 863, 875-76 (6th Cir. 2005).
Serjeedorj argues that he was not given the opportunity to corroborate his claims or
explain the lack of corroboration. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii), an alien may be required
to corroborate otherwise credible testimony unless he cannot reasonably obtain corroboration. In
Gaye v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 519, 530 (6th Cir. 2015), we held that an alien is not entitled to notice
of the sort of evidence required to corroborate his testimony. Serjeedorj attempts to distinguish
that case by arguing that the alien in Gaye was found not to be credible, while the BIA in this
case did not affirm the finding that his testimony was not credible. However, the plain language
of the statute states that corroboration may be required even of otherwise credible testimony.
Moreover, in this case, the IJ pointed out several problems with Serjeedorj’s documentation at
the hearing on November 21, 2013, including that some of the documents had been typed over
the top of a supposedly certifying seal and that some of the documents, alleged to have been
-3-
Nos. 15-4333\16-3421, Serjeedorj v. Sessions
independently translated twice, were identical. Serjeedorj did nothing to address these problems
before the final merits hearing. An alien may be required to provide corroboration where it can
reasonably be obtained, Urbina-Mejia v. Holder, 597 F.3d 360, 367 (6th Cir. 2010), and we must
uphold a finding that corroboration was required unless a reasonable trier of fact would be
compelled to conclude that corroborating evidence was unavailable. Lin v. Holder, 565 F.3d
971, 977 (6th Cir. 2009). Here, the IJ noted that Serjeedorj testified he had a statement from his
parents that could have corroborated his claims but he failed to have it translated. He also failed
to submit records of his arrests or medical treatment, instead offering the questionable documents
discussed above. Therefore, his argument that he was denied notice or an opportunity to explain
the lack of corroborating evidence is without merit.
To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, Serjeedorj was required to show that
it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted in Mongolia based on a protected ground.
See Fang Huang v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 640, 651 (6th Cir. 2008). To be eligible for protection
under the CAT, Serjeedorj was required to show that it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured in Mongolia. See Kaba v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 741, 751 (6th Cir. 2008). We uphold the
conclusion below that Serjeedorj did not establish past persecution in order to be entitled to a
presumption of future persecution. The beating Serjeedorj described did not rise to the level of
persecution. In Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941, 954 (6th Cir. 2004), we found that the detention
and beating of an alien that resulted in his hospitalization for a week was not sufficient to
establish past persecution, and the incident described by Serjeedorj was less extreme. He
presented no evidence that he would face persecution or torture based on his activities nearly
twenty years ago.
-4-
Nos. 15-4333\16-3421, Serjeedorj v. Sessions
Serjeedorj questions the denial of his request for voluntary departure, based on the BIA’s
failure to reference every page of the hearing transcript containing discussion of the issue. We
lack jurisdiction to review this claim. See Abu-Khaliel v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 627, 630-31 (6th
Cir. 2006).
Finally, rather than file a motion for a stay of removal pending this review, Serjeedorj
requested that the court facilitate his return if he were removed during the pendency of the
review but was successful in his appeal. We DENY this request as moot and DENY the
petitions for review.
-5-