2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-10-2010

Gangadei Ramrup v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-1351

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Gangadei Ramrup v. Atty Gen USA" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 272.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/272
IMG-009 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1351

___________

GANGADEI PARBHU RAMRUP,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent

____________________________________

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA No. A99-139-910)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Alberto J. Riefkohl

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 1, 2010

Before: SCIRICA, FISHER and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges

(Filed November 10, 2010 )

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gangadei Parbhu Ramrup seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 

(“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal of the removal order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). For 
2

the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition for review.

I.

Petitioner Gangadei Parbhu Ramrup, a citizen of Guyana, entered the United 

States in 2001 as a non-immigrant visitor. She failed to depart, and in 2006, the 

Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) commenced removal proceedings. Ramrup 

applied for withholding of removal and CAT protection only, because an application for 

asylum would have been untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2).

Ramrup testified that the two main ethnic groups in Guyana, the majority AfroGuyanese and the minority Indo-Guyanese, are in constant conflict. The Afro-Guyanese 

control most of the government, including the military and the police. The IndoGuyanese, represented by the People’s Progressive Party (“PPP”), have control of the 

presidency. Ramrup, an Indo-Guyanese, was self-employed before leaving Guyana. She 

acted as a poll worker during the 1997 elections, during which there were outbreaks of 

violence between the two ethnic groups. Ramrup testified that she fears she will be 

targeted if returned to Guyana. She also claims that she will suffer significant economic 

harm, because jobs are generally not available to Indo-Guyanese.

The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found her testimony credible, and recognized that 

the State Department’s 2001 Country Report for Guyana corroborated her claims about 

the ethnic tensions and the high levels of poverty in the country. Nevertheless, the IJ 

concluded that Ramrup failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution, denied her 
3

application for withholding of removal, and granted her application for voluntary 

departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed her appeal. Ramrup 

filed a timely petition for review.

II.

We have jurisdiction over the petition for review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

Where, as here, the BIA adopts the findings of the IJ and discusses some of the bases for 

the IJ’s opinion, this Court will review both opinions. See Xie v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 239, 

242 (3d Cir. 2004). We review factual findings for substantial evidence, see BrisenoFlores v. Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 226, 228 (3d Cir. 2007), upholding them “unless any 

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 

1252(b)(4)(B); see also Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 249 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

III.

Ramrup claims that the IJ and BIA wrongly determined that she failed to meet her 

burden of proof that she would more likely than not suffer harm, including economic 

harm, if returned to Guyana. To qualify for withholding of removal, an alien must 

establish that it is more likely than not that her “life or freedom would be threatened in 

th[e] country [of removal] because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership 

in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Tarrawally 

v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 180, 186 (3d Cir. 2003). To meet the stringent standard for 

withholding of removal, an applicant must provide objective evidence that future 
4

persecution is “more likely than not” to occur upon removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2); 

Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157, 182 (3d Cir. 2003).

We agree that Ramrup failed to prove a well-founded fear of persecution.1 The 

violence that envelops Guyana during elections and Ramrup’s prior political activity do 

not establish that she will be personally targeted for persecution. See Myat Thu v. Att’y 

Gen., 510 F.3d 405, 413 (3d Cir. 2007) (“generally harsh conditions shared by many 

other persons do not amount to persecution”) (quoting Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233, 1240 

(3d Cir. 1993)). Ramrup never stated that she was a member of the PPP, just that she was 

a poll worker. She presented no evidence that anyone in Guyana has a particular interest 

in her or her prior activities. 

Likewise, Ramrup’s claim that, as a member of the minority Indo-Guyanese 

population, she will face persecution also fails. Racial and ethnic tensions and 

discrimination do not necessarily denote persecution. See Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 

214, 217-18 (3d Cir. 2003) (widespread legal and economic discrimination against 

Palestinians in Saudi Arabia does not constitute persecution). Her claim that she will 

face economic persecution because of her ethnicity is also unsupported. “[D]eliberate 

imposition of severe economic disadvantage which threatens a petitioner’s life or 

freedom may constitute persecution.” Li v. Att’y Gen., 400 F.3d 157, 168 (3d Cir. 2005). 

 

1Ramrup did not contest on appeal to the BIA whether the IJ erred in determining that she 

failed to demonstrate past persecution, nor does she now claim that she suffered past 

persecution. She does state, however, that her family members suffered past persecution. 
5

Economic discrimination is insufficient. See Ahmed, 341 F.3d at 217-18. Ramrup did 

not present any evidence that she will be deliberately targeted for any reason. See Li, 400 

F.3d at 168. Accordingly, the evidence presented does not compel a conclusion contrary 

to the IJ’s and BIA’s.

Finally, the record is devoid of any evidence that would render Ramrup eligible 

for CAT protection, as she fails to show that it is more likely than not that she will face 

torture if removed to Guyana. See Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463, 471 (3d Cir. 2003). 

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review.