Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure * 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case. 08-33 51 -ag Mekheel v. Holder BIA LaForest, IJ A 096 262 196 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

# SUM MARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARYO RDER 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 20 day of January, two thousand ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 12

______________________________________ 13 14 FAWZY BOSHRA HAKEEM MEKHEEL, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 08-3351-ag 18 NAC 19 20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, * 21 22 Respondent. 23 24

______________________________________ 25 262 1 FOR PETITIONER: Robert M. Birach, Detroit, MI. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Michael F. Hertz, Deputy Assistant 4 Attorney General; M. Jocelyn Lopez 5 Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel; 6 Kristin K. Edison, Attorney, United 7 States Department of Justice, Office 8 of Immigration Litigation, 9 Washington, D.C. 10 1 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 1 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 1 4 is DENIED. 1 5 Petitioner Fawzy Boshra Hakeem Mekheel, a native and 1 6 citizen of Egypt, seeks review of a June 9, 2008 order of 1 7 the BIA denying his application for withholding of removal 1 8 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 19 re Fawzy Boshra Hakeem Mekheel , No. A 96 262 196 (BIA June 2 0 9, 2008). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 2 1 underlying facts and procedural history of the case. 2 2 When the BIA issues an independent decision on remand 2 3 from this Court, the Court reviews the BIA's decision alone. 24 See Belortaja v. Gonzales , 484 F.3d 619, 622-23 (2d Cir. 2 5 2007). The applicable standards of review are well2 6 established. Bah v. Mukasey , 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2 7 2008); Gao v. BIA , 482 F.3d 122, 126-27 (2d Cir. 2007). 2 8 Here, we find that the BIA's denial of Mekheel's application 2 9 for withholding of removal and CAT relief is supported by3 1 substantial evidence. The BIA reasonably determined that 2 Mekheel failed to show that he was persecuted as a Coptic 3 Christian by groups the Egyptian government was either 4 unable or unwilling to control. See Ivanishvili v. U.S. 5 Dep’t of Justice , 433 F.3d 332, 342 (2d Cir. 2006). 6 Mekheel argues that our holding in Poradisova v. 7 Gonzales , 420 F.3d 70, 79-80 (2d Cir. 2005), precluded the 8 BIA from giving adverse weight to the fact that Mekheel 9 never reported any of the alleged incidents of persecution 1 0 to the Egyptian authorities. However, the BIA reasonably 1 1 noted that country reports contained in the record stated 1 2 that “Egyptian authorities respond to reports of violence 1 3 against Christians, which is not inconsistent with the 1 4 opinion of the respondent’s expert,” and Mekheel points to 1 5 no evidence overlooked by the BIA showing why it was 1 6 unreasonable to require him to seek redress from the 1 7 Egyptian government. 1 8 The BIA also did not err in relying on the 2002 1 9 Religious Freedom Report and the 2003 Country Report in its 2 0 decision. While we have warned the immigration courts 2 1 against placing excessive reliance on State Department 2 2 Reports, we have held that the courts “may consider that 2 3 evidence,” but are “obligated to consider also any contrary4 1 or countervailing evidence with which [they are] presented, 2 as well as the particular circumstances of the applicant’s 3 case demonstrated by testimony and other evidence.” Tian4 Yong Chen v. INS , 359 F.3d 121, 130 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, 5 the BIA considered contrary and countervailing evidence in 6 the record; thus, it did not place excessive reliance on the 7 State Department Reports. See id. Furthermore, while we 8 have also warned against reliance on “outdated versions of 9 State Department Reports,” Mekheel never sought to submit 1 0 new background country materials. 1 1 Mekheel also contends that the BIA’s use of the phrase 1 2 “purported expert witness affidavit” indicates that the BIA 1 3 displayed “obvious” prejudice against his expert, Dr. 1 4 Marshall. Petitioner’s Brief at 21, 23. We will remand 1 5 based on agency prejudice when the conduct “results in the 1 6 appearance of bias or hostility such that [the Court] cannot 1 7 conduct a meaningful review of the decision below.” See Ali 18 v. Mukasey , 529 F.3d 478, 490 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Islam 19 v. Gonzales , 469 F.3d 53, 55 (2d Cir. 2006)). Aside from 2 0 the BIA’s use of the word “purported,” its decision gives no 2 1 indication that it was in any way biased or hostile toward 2 2 Dr. Marshall.5 1 Finally, Mekheel argues that the BIA erred by reviewing 2 the IJ’s factual findings de novo , rather than under the 3 required “clearly erroneous” standard. See8 C.F.R. 4 §§ 1003.1(d)(3)(i), (ii). However, the BIA properly noted 5 that it reviews questions of law de novo . Accordingly, it 6 was entitled to review de novothe question of whether 7 Mekheel established that his fear was on account of groups 8 that the Egyptian government was unable or unwilling to 9 control, finding that it was not. 1 0 Because the BIA did not err in determining that Mekheel 1 1 failed to establish his eligibility for withholding of 1 2 removal, it did not err in denying his claim for CAT relief 1 3 based on the same factual predicate. See Khouzam v. 14 Ashcroft , 361 F.3d 161, 171 (2d Cir. 2004). 1 5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1 6 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion 1 7 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 1 8 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is 1 9 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate 2 0 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b). 21 2 2 FOR THE COURT: 2 3 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 24 2 5 By:___________________________