Case Name: Sid Ahmed Ould Dena OULD SID AHMED, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-26
Citations: 637 F. App'x 27
Docket Number: No. 13-3883
Parties: Sid Ahmed Ould Dena OULD SID AHMED, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 27–28

Head Matter:
Sid Ahmed Ould Dena OULD SID AHMED, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-3883.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 26, 2016.
Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney-General; Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel; Matthew B. George, Trial Attorney; Jaimie M. Lowen, Law Clerk; Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Sid Ahmed Ould Dena Ould Sid Ahmed, a native and citizen of Mauritania, seeks review of a September 20, 2013 order of the BIA, affirming the July 12, 2012 decision of an Immigration Judge ("IJ"), which denied asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Ould Sid Ahmed, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Sept. 20, 2013), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. July 12, 2012). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ's decision as modified and supplemented by the BIA, and assume Ould's credibility. 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 agency's finding that Ould's fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable. See Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir.2004). Ould claimed fear of persecution at the hands of his family for the transgression of drinking beer. But the agency found that the reasonableness of such a fear is undercut by the long time Ould safely spent in Mauritania after his family learned that he drank beer. Ould has supplied no reason for disputing that determination. See Jian Xing Huang V. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir.2005).
The only objective evidence Ould submitted to show that he might be harmed in Mauritania was a summons from the Mauritanian government, and a country report stating that Mauritania enforces its prohibition on alcohol. Punishment "for violation of a generally applicable criminal law is not persecution," Saleh v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 962 F.2d 234, 239 (2d Cir.1992), and persecution cannot be established merely on the basis of a constraint in personal liberty that we would find oppressive in the United States. Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 338 (2d Cir.2013). Ould also has not shown that the law he is fleeing is enforced in 'a discriminatory fashion that would constitute persecution on account of religious beliefs. See Saleh, 962 F.2d at 239; Castro v. Holder, 597 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2010). Ould thus failed to show that the agency erred in denying asylum and withholding of removal based on his fear of alcohol-based prosecution by the Mauritanian government. See Jian Hui Shoo v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 162 (2d Cir.2008).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.
. As both parties' briefs refer to Petitioner as "Ould," we do so as well.