10-1478-ag Attobra v. Holder BIA Bukszpan, IJ A096 265 719 

### 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**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 4 th** **day of October, two thousand eleven.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JON O. NEWMAN,** 7 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 8 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**______________________________________** 11 12 **JOSEPH ASSOUMOU ATTOBRA,** 13 Petitioner**,** 14 15 **10-1478-ag** 16 **v. NAC** 17 18 19 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 20 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 21 Respondent **.** 22

**______________________________________** 23 24 **FOR PETITIONER: Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY.** 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney** 27 **General; Ada E. Bosque, Senior** 28 **Litigation Counsel; Lindsay Corliss,** 29 **Law Clerk, Office of Immigration** 30 **Litigation, Civil Division, United** 31 **States Department of Justice,** 32 **Washington, D.C.** 332 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 3 is DENIED. 4 Petitioner, Joseph Assoumou Attobra, a native and 5 citizen of Côte d’Ivoire, seeks review of a March 25, 2010, 6 decision of the BIA affirming the May 19, 2008, decision of 7 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Joanna M. Bukszpan denying his 8 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 9 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Joseph 10 Assoumou Attobra , No. A096 265 719 (B.I.A. March 25, 2010), 11 aff’gNo. A096 265 719 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 19, 2008). 12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 13 and procedural history of the case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 15 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 16 completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 17 2008). The applicable standards of review are well18 established. See8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin 19 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Because 20 Attobra does not challenge the agency’s pretermission of his 21 asylum claim or denial of CAT relief, we address only the 22 agency’s denial of withholding of removal. 233 The agency did not err in determining that Attobra 1 failed to meet his burden of proof. Although Attobra 2 testified to one incident in which military forces came to 3 his house looking for him in 2001 and that he feared that he 4 would be harmed if returned to Côte d’Ivoire because of his 5 former involvement with the Union for Democracy and Peace 6 (“UDPCI”), he conceded that he was not a leader in the 7 party, he was no longer involved in politics or affiliated 8 with the UDPCI, he had not heard any information about 9 military forces looking for him since 2005, and his wife had 10 never informed him of military forces looking for him. In 11 addition, the IJ reasonably gave limited weight to the 2003 12 letter from Attobra’s cousin, which was the only evidence 13 Attobra presented that military forces looked for him after 14 he left Côte d’Ivoire, as it contained only information the 15 cousin received from Attobra’s wife, and was called into 16 question by Attobra’s testimony that his wife never informed 17 him that military forces were looking for him. See Xiao Ji 18 Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 342 (2d Cir. 19 2006) (holding that the weight afforded to the applicant’s 20 evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the 21 discretion of the agency). Moreover, Attobra did not 22 provide any evidence that military forces continued to look 234 for him or have any interest in harming him after 2005, or 1 that former UDPCI members continued to face harm. 2 Thus, given that Attobra did not provide any objective 3 evidence that authorities in Côte d’Ivoire continued to look 4 for him or have any interest in him, the agency reasonably 5 concluded that Attobra failed to establish the requisite 6 objective likelihood of future harm. See Jian Xing Huang v. 7
INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding that a fear 8 of future persecution is not objectively reasonable if it 9 lacks “solid support” in the record and is merely 10 “speculative at best”); Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 11 135, 142 (2d Cir. 2008) (holding that to show an objectively 12 reasonable fear of future persecution, an applicant must 13 establish that he would be singled out for persecution or 14 that there was a pattern or practice of persecution of 15 similarly-situated individuals). 16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 17 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 18 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 19 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 20 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 21 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 225 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 1 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 2 3 4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 6 7 8