09-2565-ag

Bateswar v. Holder

BIA

DeFonzo, IJ

A071 495 910

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

for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 21 day of April, two thousand ten. st

PRESENT:

ROGER J. MINER,

ROBERT A. KATZMANN,

BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

 Circuit Judges. 

______________________________________

RAMNATH BATESWAR,

Petitioner, 

 v. 09-2565-ag

NAC

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

______________________________________

FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Marotta, Vernon, N.J.

FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

General; Blair O’Connor, Assistant

Director; Rachel Browning, Trial

Attorney, Office of Immigration

Litigation, United States Department

of Justice, Washington, DC
2

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review

is DENIED.

Ramnath Bateswar, a citizen of Suriname, seeks review

of a May 27, 2009, order of the BIA affirming the July 17,

2007, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Paul A. DeFonzo,

which denied Bateswar’s application for asylum and

withholding of removal. In re Ramnath Bateswar No. A071 495

910 (B.I.A. May 27, 2009), aff’g No. A071 495 910 (Immig.

Ct. N.Y. City July 17, 2007). We assume the parties’

familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history

in this case. 

Under the circumstances of this case, we review the

decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen

v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The

applicable standards of review are well-established. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d

510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that

Bateswar failed to establish that he had suffered past

persecution. As the IJ found, Bateswar’s March 1992 arrest
 In fact, the 2009 U.S. State Department Human Rights 1

Report for Suriname states that Colonel Bouterse is

currently on trial for murders committed during his regime. 

2009 U.S. State Department Human rights Report: Suriname,

available at

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/wha/136127.htm;

see Hoxhallari v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 179, 186 n.5 (2d Cir.

2006) (stating that the Court “may always exercise

independent discretion to take judicial notice of any

further changes in a country's politics that occurred

between the time of the BIA’s determination decision and our

review”). 

3

did not rise to the level of persecution. See Ivanishvili

v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir. 2006)

(holding that the harm must be sufficiently severe, rising

above “mere harassment”). Moreover, the arrest was

unrelated to his discovery of weapons on a plane in Libya. 

See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 (2d Cir.

2005)(holding that “an [asylum] applicant must establish a

fear of reprisal ‘on account of’ having demonstrated

opposition to the government policy”).

The agency also reasonably determined that, even if

Bateswar has established past persecution, conditions in

Suriname had changed such that he could not establish a

well-founded fear of future persecution because Colonel

Bouterse no longer holds power. See Niang v. Mukasey, 511 1

F.3d 138, 148-49 (2d Cir. 2007)(stating that while a finding

of past persecution establishes a presumption of future
4

persecution, this presumption can be rebutted if the

government establishes a “fundamental change in

circumstances such that the applicant’s life or freedom

would not be threatened on account of any of the five

grounds” (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)). Because

Bateswar is unable to meet his burden of proof for asylum,

his withholding of removal claim necessarily fails. See

Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

DENIED. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk