Traore v. Garland
This text of Traore v. Garland (Traore v. Garland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
21-6066 Traore v. Garland BIA Wright, IJ A205 817 313
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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 21st day of June, two thousand twenty- 4 three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 REENA RAGGI, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 BETH ROBINSON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 DRISSA SOULEYMANE TRAORE, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 21-6066 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 1 FOR PETITIONER: Khagendra Gharti-Chhetry, Esq., New York, 2 NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 5 General; Holly M. Smith, Assistant Director; 6 Jesse D. Lorenz, Trial Attorney, Office of 7 Immigration Litigation, United States 8 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of
11 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
12 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.
13 Petitioner Drissa Souleymane Traore, a native and citizen of Mali, seeks
14 review of a January 13, 2021, decision of the BIA affirming an October 19, 2018,
15 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum,
16 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
17 (“CAT”). In re Drissa Souleymane Traore, No. A205 817 313 (B.I.A. Jan. 13, 2021),
18 aff’g No. A205 817 313 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 19, 2018). We assume the parties’
19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. See
21 Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008). We review factual findings
22 for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d
23 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless
2 1 any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”
2 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
3 To establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, “the applicant [must]
4 present credible testimony that he subjectively fears persecution and establish that
5 his fear is objectively reasonable.” Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d
6 Cir. 2004); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2). A “fear may be well-founded even if
7 there is only a slight, though discernible, chance of persecution.” Diallo v. INS, 232
8 F.3d 279, 284 (2d Cir. 2000). But a fear is not objectively reasonable if it lacks “solid
9 support” in the record and is merely “speculative at best.” Jian Xing Huang v. INS,
10 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005). An applicant can satisfy his burden with evidence
11 that “he . . . would be singled out individually for persecution” or evidence of “a
12 pattern or practice” of persecution of “similarly situated” individuals within the
13 home country. 8 C.F.R § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii).
14 Traore, who came to the United States in 2008, asserted a fear of future
15 persecution from the Malian military and from terrorist groups. He alleged that
16 he opposed a 2012 military coup and that his uncle, who was a member of the
17 military at the time, had been killed because he also opposed the coup. Traore
18 alleged that he would be targeted because of his own opposition and because he
3 1 would investigate his uncle’s death. He also asserted that he was opposed to
2 terrorism, and that terrorist groups had targeted his cousin, a doctor, and forced
3 him to treat only Muslims.
4 The agency did not err in concluding that Traore failed to demonstrate a
5 well-founded fear of future persecution by either the Malian government or
6 terrorists. Traore was in the United States at the time of the coup, is therefore not
7 similarly situated to his uncle, who was a member of the military at the time of the
8 coup and opposed it. See 8 C.F.R § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). Traore did not explain what
9 he would do to inquire into his uncle’s death, nor did he present evidence either
10 that anyone would have an interest in harming him if he did inquire, or that
11 anyone has been harmed for inquiring into the deaths of family members who
12 served in the military. On this record, the IJ reasonably concluded that he did not
13 establish that his fear was more than “speculative.” Jian Xing Huang, 421 F.3d at
14 129.
15 Similarly, Traore did not establish that his political opinions would subject
16 him to persecution in Mali. He testified that he was politically outspoken in Mali
17 before he left in 2008, but conceded that he suffered no past harm on that basis and
18 had not been politically active in the United States. Moreover, country conditions
4 1 evidence reflects that the leader of the 2012 coup was arrested, that civilian control
2 of the military has been partially restored, and does not reflect the persecution of
3 individuals opposed to the coup. Therefore, Traore did not meet his burden of
4 establishing a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his political opinion.
5 See Jian Xing Huang, 421 F.3d at 129; see also Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138,
6 157–58 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[W]hen a petitioner bears the burden of proof, his failure
7 to adduce evidence can itself constitute the ‘substantial evidence’ necessary to
8 support the agency's challenged decision.”).
9 The IJ also reasonably concluded that Traore failed to demonstrate a
10 well-founded fear of future persecution from terrorist groups in Mali. Traore is
11 not similarly situated to his cousin because he is not a doctor, he is not from
12 northern Mali, and he did not express an intent to live in northern Mali;
13 accordingly, he failed to produce evidence he would be singled out as his cousin
14 was. See 8 C.F.R § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii). Further, the record does not reflect terrorist
15 activity in Bamako, where Traore lived, nor does it reflect persecution of members
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Traore v. Garland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/traore-v-garland-ca2-2023.