Court Opinion

ID: 9410976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 15:00:45.413359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:01.918736
License: Public Domain

21-6187
    Yapo v. Garland
                                                                                     BIA
                                                                               Sponzo, IJ
                                                                             A201 123 436

                           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 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
    Square, in the City of New York, on the 25th day of July, two thousand twenty-
    three.

    PRESENT:
                      JON O. NEWMAN,
                      SUSAN L. CARNEY,
                      JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
                     Circuit Judges.
    _____________________________________

    PRIVAT YAPO,
             Petitioner,

                      v.                                           21-6187
                                                                   NAC
    MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
    STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
               Respondent.
    _____________________________________

    FOR PETITIONER:                       Gary J. Yerman, Esq., New York, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT:                      Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant
                                     Attorney General; Bernard A. Joseph, Senior
                                     Litigation Counsel; Enitan O. Otunla, Trial
                                     Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation,
                                     United States Department of Justice,
                                     Washington, DC.

      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.

      Petitioner Privat Yapa, a native and citizen of the Ivory Coast, seeks review

of a March 4, 2021 decision of the BIA, affirming a July 26, 2018 decision of an

Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his application for asylum, withholding

of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).            In re

Privat Yapo, No. A 201 123 436 (B.I.A. Mar. 4, 2021), aff’g No. A 201 123 436 (Immigr.

Ct. N.Y. City July 26, 2018).      We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

underlying facts and procedural history.

      We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan

Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review questions of law de

novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562

F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive

unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
                                          2
contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

      To obtain asylum, an applicant must establish “past persecution” or “a well-

founded fear of future persecution” on account of a protected ground. 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.13(b);8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Where, as here, an asylum applicant does

not allege past harm, he has the burden to establish an objectively reasonable fear

of future persecution. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft,

357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding that “a well-founded fear of future

persecution . . . requires that the alien present credible testimony that he

subjectively fears persecution and establish that his fear is objectively

reasonable”).   “Objective reasonableness entails a showing that a reasonable

person in the petitioner’s circumstances would fear persecution if returned to his

native country.” Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 128 (2d Cir. 2005). A

“fear may be well-founded even if there is only a slight, though discernible, chance

of persecution.” Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 284 (2d Cir. 2000). But a fear is not

objectively reasonable if it lacks “solid support” in the record and is merely

“speculative at best.” Jian Xing Huang, 421 F.3d at 129.

      Yapo alleged a fear of persecution because he had done business with both

major political parties, because he had been a supporter of the regime of former

                                         3
president Laurent Gbabgo, (who lost the 2010/2011 elections and was later tried

for war crimes in the International Criminal Court), and because of his Attie

ethnicity and his evangelical Christian beliefs. Because he did not claim past

persecution, he had the burden to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear that

he would be “singled out individually for persecution” or that there was a “pattern

or practice” of persecution of a group of persons “similarly situated” to him.

8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). The agency reasonably concluded that he did not

meet his burden.

      Yapo testified that his ex-wife received telephone calls following the 2010

elections, but the calls were anonymous, and the callers inquired about Yapo’s

whereabouts, but did not make specific threats. He testified that his five living

siblings, all of whom are Christian, of Attie ethnicity, and open supporters of the

party founded by Gbabgo (Ivorian Popular Front (“FPI”)), continue to live

unharmed in the Ivory coast, as do his ex-wife and daughter. Unlike his siblings,

he did not openly support any political party because, as the owner of a computer

company, he needed to solicit business from both FPI supporters and people who

supported the opposition. These facts support the agency’s conclusion that Yapo

did not demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of persecution based on his

                                        4
political opinion, religion, or ethnicity.   See Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 178

(requiring “reliable, specific, objective supporting evidence” (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted)); Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir.

1999) (finding that similarly situated family members who remain unharmed cuts

against the likelihood of applicant’s future harm).

      Nor did Yapo’s country conditions evidence demonstrate a pattern or

practice of persecution of similarly situated individuals.    The 2016 elections,

unlike those in 2010, were “peaceful and considered inclusive and transparent,”

according to the 2017 U.S. State Department country report.              Certified

Administrative Record (“CAR”) at 238 (Cote d’Ivoire 2017 Human Rights Report

at 1 (2017)).   The FPI participated and won seats in the National Assembly.

While a couple hundred people may have been arrested as political prisoners

between 2011 and 2017, some of those may have been detained for crimes, and the

government had pledged to discuss these detainees and other issues with the

opposition. Ethnic discrimination remained a problem, but the law prohibited

xenophobia, racism, and tribalism; although there were reports of police abuse and

harassment of non-Ivorian Africans, Yapo is Ivorian.         With respect to the

treatment of Christians, the State Department’s International Religious Freedom

                                         5
Report, incorporated by reference into its country report on human rights,

observed that the Ivory Coast’s constitution “provides for freedom of religious

belief and worship” and “prohibits ‘propaganda’ that encourages religious

hatred,” and that the government regularly funded pilgrimages to France and

Israel for Christians, who make up thirty-four percent of the population. Cote

d’Ivoire    2017    Int’l   Religious     Freedom    Report       at   1–2   (2017),

https://www.state.gov/reports/2017-report-on-international-religious-

freedom/cote-divoire__trashed/. In sum, the agency did not err because there is

insufficient evidence that Yapo will be singled out or that individuals like him are

targeted for persecution. See Jian Xing Huang, 421 F.3d at 129.

      Because Yapo did not meet his burden of showing the objectively reasonable

fear of persecution required for asylum, he “necessarily” failed to meet his burden

for withholding of removal and CAT relief. Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119–20

(2d Cir. 2010).

      For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending

motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

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

                                          6