Court Opinion

ID: 9383816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 14:00:34.643872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:48.516238
License: Public Domain

20-1903
     Rodriguez Moscoso v. Garland
                                                                                   BIA
                                                                              Conroy, IJ
                                                                           A201 242 139

                            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.

 1        At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
 2   for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
 3   United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
 4   New York, on the 31st day of March, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            REENA RAGGI,
 9            WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
10            EUNICE C. LEE,
11                 Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13
14   RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ MOSCOSO, AKA
15   RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ, AKA RAMIRO
16   MOSCOSO,
17                 Petitioner,
18
19                    v.                                         20-1903
20                                                               NAC
21
22   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
23   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
24                 Respondent.
25   _____________________________________
26
27   FOR PETITIONER:                    Nicholas J. Mundy, Esq.,
28                                      Brooklyn, NY.
 1   FOR RESPONDENT:             Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant
 2                               Attorney General; Erica B. Miles,
 3                               Senior Litigation Counsel, Office
 4                               of Immigration Litigation; Jaclyn
 5                               E. Shea, Trial Attorney, Office of
 6                               Immigration Litigation, United
 7                               States Department of Justice,
 8                               Washington, DC.
 9
10       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

13   is DENIED.

14       Petitioner Ramiro Rodriguez Moscoso, a native and citizen

15   of Colombia, seeks review of a June 4, 2020, decision of the

16   BIA affirming a June 20, 2018, decision of an Immigration

17   Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding

18   of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

19   (“CAT”).     In re Ramiro Rodriguez Moscoso, No. A201 242 139

20   (B.I.A. June 4, 2020), aff’g No. A201 242 139 (Immigr. Ct.

21   N.Y. City June 20, 2018).   We assume the parties’ familiarity

22   with the underlying facts and procedural history.

23       We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by

24   the BIA.     See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d

25   Cir. 2005). “The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient

26   to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but

27   only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the

                                    2
 1   applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers

 2   to    specific    facts   sufficient   to    demonstrate   that   the

 3   applicant is a refugee. . . . Where the trier of fact

 4   determines that the applicant should provide evidence that

 5   corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must

 6   be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence

 7   and   cannot     reasonably   obtain   the   evidence.”     8 U.S.C.

 8   § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii).      The agency may deny relief based on a

 9   lack of corroboration if it identifies reasonably available

10   evidence that the applicant should have presented.          See id.;

11   Wei Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23, 28 (2d Cir. 2018).          Before

12   denying a claim solely on an applicant’s failure to provide

13   corroborating evidence, the IJ must, either in the decision

14   or otherwise in the record, “(1) point to specific pieces of

15   missing evidence and show that it was reasonably available,

16   (2) give the applicant an opportunity to explain the omission,

17   and (3) assess any explanation given.”         Wei Sun, 883 F.3d at

18   31.    Advance notice of the need for specific corroboration

19   and an opportunity to gather the evidence are not required,

20   because “the alien bears the ultimate burden of introducing

21   such evidence without prompting from the IJ.”        Id. (quotation

22   marks omitted).       Where the IJ has identified the missing

                                       3
 1   evidence, we may reverse the agency’s decision only if “a

 2   reasonable trier of fact is compelled to conclude that such

 3   corroborating     evidence     is       unavailable.”        8 U.S.C.

 4   § 1252(b)(4); see Yan Juan Chen v. Holder, 658 F.3d 246, 252–

 5   53 (2d Cir. 2011).   The agency did not err in concluding that

 6   Rodriguez Moscoso failed to meet his burden of proof.

 7       The agency identified the missing evidence. See Wei Sun,

 8   883 F.3d at 31.   The IJ noted that Rodriguez Moscoso did not

 9   provide (1) letters of supports from his siblings, even though

10   he claimed that he brought them to the United States because

11   of similar threats they received in Colombia and saw them

12   daily; (2) a letter from a friend in Colombia who told him

13   that the Cordillera gang was stronger than before he left;

14   and (3) social media posts that indicated that the Colombian

15   government   would   not     protect    him.     Rodriguez   Moscoso

16   explained that his siblings could not testify because they

17   were afraid of immigration officials, he did not think to ask

18   his siblings for written statements, he did not get a letter

19   from his friend in Colombia because his friend was busy, and

20   he did not document social media posts about the police

21   because he did not realize such evidence was important and he

22   was not good with technology.            These explanations do not

                                         4
 1   demonstrate that the missing evidence was unavailable.                       Id.;

 2   see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4).

 3       In addition to the missing evidence, the agency did not

 4   err in finding that the evidence that Rodriguez Moscoso did

 5   provide from Colombia was insufficient to corroborate his

 6   account.         Rodriguez        Moscoso     testified        that    the   gang

 7   threatened to kill him and his family and threatened his

 8   parents three times.              However, the letter from Rodriguez

9    Moscoso’s       mother    and    stepfather    did    not      mention   threats

10   against them or that the family had been in danger, and

11   Rodriguez       Moscoso’s       explanation    does      not    establish    that

12   evidence corroborating the threats was unavailable or explain

13   why Rodriguez Moscoso did not ask his mother to supplement

14   her statement.         See Wei Sun, 883 F.3d at 31.

15       Because the record does not compel a conclusion that

16   corroborating evidence was unavailable, the agency did not

17   err in finding that Rodriguez Moscoso failed to satisfy his

18   burden     of    proof.          See   8 U.S.C.       §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii),

19   1252(b)(4);      Wei     Sun,    883   F.3d   at   28.         That   finding   is

20   dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief

21   because all three forms of relief were based on the same

22   factual predicate.          See Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119–

                                             5
1   20 (2d Cir. 2010).

2       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

3   DENIED.   All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

4   stays VACATED.

5                               FOR THE COURT:
6                               Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
7                               Clerk of Court

                                  6