17-992 Rashid v. Sessions BIA Sagerman, IJ A087 468 025 

### 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 TO 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 Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 9 th**  **day of October, two thousand eighteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **ROSEMARY S. POOLER,** 8 **CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **SAJJAD RASHID,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 17-992** 16 **NAC** 17 **JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,** 18 **UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Amy Nussbaum Gell, Gell & Gell, 23 New York, NY. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Melissa Neiman27 Kelting, Assistant Director; Jacob 28 A. Bashyrov, Trial Attorney, 292 Office of Immigration Litigation, 1 United States Department of 2 Justice, Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Sajjad Rashid, a nat ive and citizen of 9 Pakistan, seeks review of a March 9, 2017, decision of the 10 BIA denying Rashid’s motion to remand and affirming an October 11 6, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 12 Rashid’s application for relief under the Convention Against 13 Torture (“CAT”). In re Sajjad Rashid, No. A 087 468 025 14 (B.I.A. Mar. 9, 2017), aff’g No. A 087 468 025 (Immig. Ct. 15 Napanoch Oct. 6, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity 16 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 17 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 18

the BIA. Gertsenshteyn v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 544 F.3d 19 137, 142 (2d Cir. 2008). Rashid’s convictions limit our 20 review to constitutional claims and questions of law. 8 21 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); Ortiz-Franco v. Holder , 782 F.3d 22 81, 86 (2d Cir. 2015). 233 To obtain CAT deferral—the only form of relief for which 1 he was eligible—Rashid was required to demonstrate a 2 likelihood that he would be tortured in Pakistan with 3 government involvement or acquiescence. 8 C.F.R. 4 §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17(a), 1208.18(a)(1). We discern no 5 legal or constitutional error in the agency’s conclusion that 6 Rashid failed to meet his burden of proof. The IJ did not 7 err in excluding Rashid’s late-filed evidence given that IJs 8 have broad discretion to set and enforce filing deadlines, 9 Rashid’s counsel agreed to the hearing date and filing 10 deadline, and Rashid did not establish good cause for the 11 late filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c); Dedji v. Mukasey , 12 525 F.3d 187, 191-92 (2d Cir. 2008); Burger v. Gonzales , 498 13 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir. 2007). Given the failure of counsel 14 to timely submit evidence on Rashid’s behalf, the IJ was left 15 with only Rashid’s bare-bones application, a case summary 16 prepared by his lawyer, two news articles describing 17 unrelated suicide bombings in his hometown, and the 2015 State 18 Department human rights report. The IJ discussed this 19 limited evidence, so it was not overlooked. And the IJ’s 20 reliance on the lack of corrob orating evidence in denying CAT 214 relief was permissible. See Chuilu Liu v. Holder , 575 F.3d 1 193, 198 n.5 (2d Cir. 2009) (“[A] failure to corroborate can 2 suffice, without more, to support a finding that an alien has 3 not met his burden of proof.”); Savchuck v. Mukasey , 518 F.3d 4 119, 124 (2d Cir. 2008) (CAT claim resting on a chain of 5 unsupported assumptions is too speculative to warrant 6 relief); Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS , 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d 7 Cir. 2005) (“In the absence of solid support in the record,” 8 an asylum applicant’s fear is “speculative at best.”). 9 Nor do we discern any legal or constitutional error in 10 the BIA’s denial of remand. A motion to remand based on new 11 evidence is subject to the same rules as a motion to reopen, 12 and thus a movant’s failure to proffer previously unavailable 13 evidence or demonstrate his prima facie eligibility for 14 relief are permissible grounds for denying a motion to remand. 15 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 546 F.3d 16 138, 168 (2d Cir. 2008) (a movant seeking remand must satisfy 17 the “heavy burden of demonstrating that the proffered new 18 evidence would likely alter the result in his case” (quotation 19 marks omitted)); Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 421 20 F.3d 149, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2005) (BIA may deny a motion to 215 remand for failure to provide evidence that was previously 1 unavailable). We discern no legal error in the BIA’s 2 determinations that the evidence was previously available, 3 and that the evidence would not change the outcome of the 4 case given Rashid’s burden to show that he would likely be 5 tortured by or with the acquiescence of authorities in 6 Pakistan. 7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 8 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, the stay of removal 9 previously granted in this petition is VACATED. 10

11 FOR THE COURT: 12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 13 Clerk of Court 14