16-1319 Jagdesh v. Sessions BIA Hom, IJ A098 422 127 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 TO 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 Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 20th day of July, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SAVITRIE JAGDESH, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-1319 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Savitrie Jagdesh, pro se, South 24 Ozone Park, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Anthony C. 28 Payne, Assistant Director; Jessica 29 D. Strokus, Trial Attorney, Office 1 of Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

8 is DENIED.

9 Petitioner Savitrie Jagdesh, a native and citizen of

10 Guyana, seeks review of a March 31, 2016, decision of the BIA

11 affirming a May 21, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge

12 (“IJ”) denying Jagdesh’s application for withholding of

13 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture

14 (“CAT”). In re Savitrie Jagdesh, No. A 098 422 127 (B.I.A.

, 2016), aff’g No. A 098 422 127 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City

16 May 21, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

17 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

18 We have reviewed the decisions of both the BIA and the

19 IJ “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of

20 Homeland Sec.,

(2d Cir. 2006). The

21 applicable standards of review are well established. See 8

(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder,

,

23 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Although Jagdesh’s counsel before the 2 1 agency failed to exhaust any relevant arguments on appeal to

2 the BIA, given Jagdesh’s current pro se status, we have

3 reviewed the record and the agency’s rulings and find no error

4 in the agency’s conclusion that Jagdesh failed to meet her

5 burden of proof.

6 To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must

7 establish that her “life or freedom would be threatened” in

8 the country of removal.

(b)(3)(A); see 8

(b); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft,

,

10 178 (2d Cir. 2004). A showing of past persecution creates a

11 presumption of future persecution.

(b)(1).

12 “The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain

13 the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the

14 applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s

15 testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific

16 facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a

17 refugee.”

(b)(1)(B)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(C).

18 “Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should

19 provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible

20 testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the

21 applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably 3 1 obtain the evidence.”

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). “No court

2 shall reverse a determination made by a trier of fact with

3 respect to the availability of corroborating evidence . . .

4 unless the court finds, . . . a reasonable trier of fact is

5 compelled to conclude that such corroborating evidence is

6 unavailable.” Id. § 1252(b)(4).

7 As the agency found, Jagdesh did not produce reasonably

8 available documentary evidence. First, at a minimum, she

9 could have obtained testimony or statements from her father,

10 stepmother, or sister, all of whom live in the United States.

11 Second, she failed to provide any medical records, despite

12 alleging that they were in the record, testifying to hospital

13 treatment, and stating in her application that she had

14 obtained a medical report that she filed with a magistrate in

15 Guyana. Accordingly, there is nothing in the record that

16 compels a conclusion that medical records were unavailable.

17 Id. § 1252(b)(4).

18 Finally, the IJ reasonably declined to give weight to

19 Jagdesh’s one piece of evidence, a 2006 letter from the police

20 in Guyana submitted to confirm that Jagdesh had reported

21 threats from her husband in 1999. As the IJ reasoned, the 4 1 letter lacked foundation: it was created after Jagdesh came

2 to the United States and she did not explain how she obtained

3 it. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

,

4 342 (2d Cir. 2006) (reasoning that the weight accorded to an

5 applicant’s evidence “lie[s] largely within the discretion of

6 the IJ.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, the

7 letter conflicted with Jagdesh’s testimony to the extent that

8 it reported that there was an investigation, but that her ex-

9 husband had gone into hiding.

10 Given the complete absence of reliable corroboration,

11 the agency reasonably concluded that Jagdesh failed to meet

12 her burden of proof.

(b)(1)(B)(ii). This

13 determination is dispositive of withholding of removal and

14 CAT relief because both claims are based on the same factual

15 predicate. See Lecaj v. Holder,

(2d

16 Cir. 2010).

17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

18 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal

19 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,

20 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition

21 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 5 1 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of

2 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule

3 34.1(b).

4 FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 6 Clerk of Court

6