Filed: Dec. 19, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 11-724-ag Ameen v. Holder BIA Hom, IJ A099 759 515 A099 759 516 A099 759 517 A099 759 518 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 O
Summary: 11-724-ag Ameen v. Holder BIA Hom, IJ A099 759 515 A099 759 516 A099 759 517 A099 759 518 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..
More
11-724-ag
Ameen v. Holder
BIA
Hom, IJ
A099 759 515
A099 759 516
A099 759 517
A099 759 518
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 19th day of December, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 NOORUL AMEEN, NASIMA AMEEN, MOHAMMED
14 FAHAD, ERMA AMEEN,
15 Petitioner,
16 11-724-ag
17 v. NAC
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 ______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Mitchell C. Zwaik, Bohemia, New
25 York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
28 General; David V. Bernal, Assistant
29 Director; Jesse M. Bless, Trial
1 Attorney, Office of Immigration
2 Litigation, Civil Division, United
3 States Department of Justice,
4 Washington, D.C.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DENIED.
10 Petitioners, Noorul Ameen (“Ameen”), Nasima Ameen,
11 Mohammed Fahad, and Erma Ameen, natives and citizens of
12 Pakistan, seek review of a January 25, 2011 decision of the
13 BIA affirming the September 10, 2008 decision of Immigration
14 Judge (“IJ”) Sandy K. Hom denying Ameen’s application for
15 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
16 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Noorul Ameen, Nos.
17 A099 759 515/516/517/518 (B.I.A. Jan. 25, 2011), aff’g Nos.
18 A099 759 515/516/517/518 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sep. 10,
19 2008). In seeking review, Ameen does not challenge the
20 agency’s denial of CAT relief or its findings that his
21 testimony concerning his arrest by the police was not
22 credible and that he did not establish a subjective fear of
23 persecution independent of past persecution.
24 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
25 facts and procedural history of the case.
26 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
2
1 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
2 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
3 applicable standards of review are well established.
4 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562
5 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
6 Ameen argues that the Muhajir Qaun Movement (“MQM”)
7 beat him because of his political affiliations and that he
8 therefore established past persecution based on a protected
9 ground. Ameen further argues that the agency’s decision was
10 flawed by errors in the IJ’s factual summary of his case.
11 His arguments are unavailing. Ameen did not exhaust his
12 administrative remedies related to those alleged errors by
13 presenting them to the BIA. See Foster v. INS,
376 F.3d 75,
14 78 (2d Cir. 2004).
15 Ameen further argues that the agency erred by failing
16 to consider whether the MQM had “mixed motives.” We
17 disagree. In evaluating his claim under the REAL ID Act’s
18 “one central reason” standard, see 8 U.S.C.
19 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), the agency considered whether Ameen’s
20 political affiliation was one of the motives behind the harm
21 he suffered, and therefore conducted an appropriate
22 analysis. See Castro v. Holder,
597 F.3d 93, 104 (2d Cir.
23 2010). The agency reasonably found, moreover, that Ameen
24 did not establish that his political affiliation was one
3
1 central reason for the harm he suffered at the hands of the
2 MQM. Regarding the MQM’s practice of extortion, the record
3 does not compel the conclusion that Ameen was targeted
4 because of his political views when he testified that the
5 MQM are like “gangster[s]” who asked for “protection money”
6 from “every store.” Regarding the MQM’s attempts to recruit
7 Ameen as an undercover police officer, Ameen did not offer
8 any evidence to show either that the MQM attempted to
9 recruit him because of his political opinion or that the
10 retaliation he suffered was motivated by anything except his
11 unwillingness to cooperate. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
12 U.S. 478, 482-83 (1992). Thus, substantial evidence
13 supports the agency’s conclusion that Ameen did not
14 establish that he suffered past persecution based on a
15 protected ground. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno,
191 F.3d
16 307, 314 (2d Cir. 1999).
17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
19 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
20 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
21 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
22 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
23 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
4
1 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
2 FOR THE COURT:
3 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4
5
6
7
5
