Hugo Polycarp v. U.S. Attorney General

Eleventh Circuit

Hugo Polycarp v. U.S. Attorney General

361 F. App'x 36

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 12, 2010

Docket09-11774

StatusUnpublished

This text of 361 F. App'x 36 (Hugo Polycarp v. U.S. Attorney General) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hugo Polycarp v. U.S. Attorney General, 361 F. App'x 36 (11th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Hugo Polycarpe, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and relief under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). The immigration judge found that Poly-carpe failed to prove that he suffered past persecution on account of a protected ground or a probability of future persecution or torture if he returns to Haiti, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision without opinion. We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the finding that Polycarpe did not suffer past persecution on account of his political opinion. After Polycarpe and 300 members of his village stole building supplies from government trucks, the government issued a warrant for his arrest. Prosecution for a crime does not constitute persecution unless the prosecution is based on a protected ground and the punishment is sufficiently extreme to constitute persecution. Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 445 F.3d 1311, 1315-16 (11th Cir.2006). Prosecution is not a disproportionate punishment for theft.

Substantial evidence also supports the finding that Polycarpe would not be singled out for mistreatment on account of his *37 political beliefs if he returned to Haiti. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1); Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir.2005). Polycarpe argues that members of Lavalas “came shooting and looking” for him and the government cannot protect him from mob violence, but Poly-carpe evaded arrest with the assistance of a friend who was a member of Lavalas. Polycarpe’s concerns about widespread lawlessness do not establish a fear of persecution on account of protected ground. Polycarpe’s wife and children have relocated within Haiti without incident. See Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1259 (11th Cir.2006).

We DENY Polycarpe’s petition for review.

PETITION DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Hugo Polycarpe, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and relief under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). The immigration judge found that Poly-carpe failed to prove that he suffered past persecution on account of a protected ground or a probability of future persecution or torture if he returns to Haiti, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision without opinion. We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the finding that Polycarpe did not suffer past persecution on account of his political opinion. After Polycarpe and 300 members of his village stole building supplies from government trucks, the government issued a warrant for his arrest. Prosecution for a crime does not constitute persecution unless the prosecution is based on a protected ground and the punishment is sufficiently extreme to constitute persecution. Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 445 F.3d 1311, 1315-16 (11th Cir.2006). Prosecution is not a disproportionate punishment for theft.

Substantial evidence also supports the finding that Polycarpe would not be singled out for mistreatment on account of his *37 political beliefs if he returned to Haiti. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1); Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1231 (11th Cir.2005). Polycarpe argues that members of Lavalas “came shooting and looking” for him and the government cannot protect him from mob violence, but Poly-carpe evaded arrest with the assistance of a friend who was a member of Lavalas. Polycarpe’s concerns about widespread lawlessness do not establish a fear of persecution on account of protected ground. Polycarpe’s wife and children have relocated within Haiti without incident. See Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1259 (11th Cir.2006).

We DENY Polycarpe’s petition for review.

PETITION DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

361 F. App'x 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hugo-polycarp-v-us-attorney-general-ca11-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack