Filed: Aug. 14, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-14-2007 Alymamy v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-1440 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Alymamy v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 595. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/595 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-14-2007 Alymamy v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-1440 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Alymamy v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 595. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/595 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions o..
More
Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-14-2007
Alymamy v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-1440
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Alymamy v. Atty Gen USA" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 595.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/595
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-1440
SANOGO ALYMAMY,
Petitioner,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(No. A96-429-678)
Immigration Judge: Mirlande Tadal
Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 24, 2007
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, FUENTES and ALARCÓN,* Circuit Judges.
(Filed: August 14, 2007)
*
The Honorable Arthur L. Alarcón, Senior Judge, United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner Sanogo Alymamy challenges the denial of his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). For the reasons stated below, we will deny his petition.
I.
Sanogo Alymamy is a 32-year-old Dioula Muslim citizen of the Ivory Coast. He
entered the United States on November 1, 2000, with a B-1 business visa that permitted
him to remain in the country for three months. He remained beyond this time, and in
August 2003 was personally served with a Notice to Appear by the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
In October 2003, Alymamy applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the CAT. In his application and at his hearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”),
he testified to several facts concerning his life in the Ivory Coast. He stated that he and
his family are members of the Rally of the Republicans (“RDR”), an opposition political
party led by a former prime minister. In October 2000, he attended an RDR political
rally; members of the army or police shot into crowd, striking his cousin on the shoulder
with a bullet. Alymamy himself was arrested at the rally and subsequently beaten by
police who pressed a hot iron to his shoulder. After being detained for the night,
-2-
Alymamy, in fear of further mistreatment, escaped from police custody along with other
prisoners. Alymamy also testified that Dioula people are generally persecuted in the
Ivory Coast, and that several members of his family fled from their homes to another
region in fear of persecution. In addition, Alymamy submitted (1) an affidavit from his
uncle, a university professor who fled the country in fear of political persecution; (2)
reports and articles discussing political and ethnic violence in the Ivory Coast; and (3) an
affidavit from a physician who stated that Alymamy had scars consistent with the injuries
he described in his testimony.
At his hearing, the IJ determined that there were no extraordinary or changed
circumstances justifying his failure to apply for asylum within one year of his arrival to
the United States. The IJ also concluded that Alymamy did not qualify for withholding of
removal or relief under the CAT. The IJ noted that Alymamy did not mention his
October 2000 arrest in his application and determined that he had failed to provide a
persuasive explanation for this omission. The IJ found that Alymamy had not suffered
past persecution or demonstrated a clear probability of persecution or torture if returned
to the Ivory Coast. On January 11, 2006, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
affirmed the IJ’s decision without an opinion. This petition for review followed. Since
the BIA summarily adopted the decision of the IJ, we review the IJ’s decision.
Sukwanputra v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 627, 631 (3d Cir. 2006).
II.
-3-
Because Alymamy failed to file his application within the one year filing
requirement, we perceive no basis for disturbing the IJ’s conclusions that Alymamy could
not pursue his asylum claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Moreover, we do not have
jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Alymamy failed to establish either
changed or extraordinary circumstances qualifying him for an exception to the one-year
period. Id. at 635.
As to Alymamy’s two remaining claims, withholding of removal and relief under
the CAT, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision to deny both
claims.1 “If a reasonable fact finder could make a particular finding on the administrative
record, then the finding is supported by substantial evidence.” Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d
228, 249 (3d Cir. 2003). The IJ’s findings “must be upheld unless the evidence not only
supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Abdille v. Ashcroft,
242 F.3d 477,
483-84 (3d Cir. 2001).
To qualify for withholding of removal, Alymamy must show a “clear probability”
that he would be persecuted if returned to the Ivory Coast; in other words, persecution
1
It is questionable whether Alymamy properly presented these claims to the BIA.
Although we have stated that petitioners need make only “some effort” to place the BIA
on notice of an issue, Wu v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 418, 422 (3d Cir. 2005), Alymamy’s
Notice of Appeal does not mention his withholding of removal or CAT claim and his
brief to the BIA focuses exclusively on his asylum claim while making only one passing
reference to withholding of removal. J.A. 9 (“[Alymamy] has met his burden for a grant
of asylum and withholding of removal by establishing both past persecution and a
well-founded fear of future persecution.”). We will not address the exhaustion issue
inasmuch as it is clear that Alymamy’s claims fail on the merits.
-4-
must be more likely than not. See INS v. Stevic 467 U.S. 407, 414 (1984). The IJ
reasonably doubted Alymamy’s description of his arrest and detention, noting that it was
not mentioned in either his application or his uncle’s affidavit. The IJ’s conclusion that
he had not suffered past persecution is thus supported by substantial evidence. Further,
though Alymamy did provide general information about violent conditions in the Ivory
Coast, he failed to present evidence that he would be specifically targeted if returned
there. Finally, he also failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured if he returns to the Ivory Coast; substantial evidence, therefore, supports the IJ’s
denial of his CAT claim as well.
III.
Accordingly, we will deny the petition for review.
-5-
