17-992 Rashid v. Sessions BIA Sagerman, IJ A087 468 025 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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 9th day of October, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SAJJAD RASHID, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-992 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Amy Nussbaum Gell, Gell & Gell, 24 New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Melissa Neiman- 28 Kelting, Assistant Director; Jacob 29 A. Bashyrov, Trial Attorney, 1 Office of Immigration Litigation, 2 United States Department of 3 Justice, 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 Sajjad Rashid, a native and citizen of

10 Pakistan, seeks review of a March 9, 2017, decision of the

11 BIA denying Rashid’s motion to remand and affirming an October

12 6, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying

13 Rashid’s application for relief under the Convention Against

14 Torture (“CAT”). In re Sajjad Rashid, No. A 087 468 025

15 (B.I.A. Mar. 9, 2017), aff’g No. A 087 468 025 (Immig. Ct.

16 Napanoch Oct. 6, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity

17 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

18 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by

19 the BIA. Gertsenshteyn v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

(2d Cir. 2008). Rashid’s convictions limit our

21 review to constitutional claims and questions of law. 8

(a)(2)(C), (D); Ortiz-Franco v. Holder,

(2d Cir. 2015). 2 1 To obtain CAT deferral—the only form of relief for which

2 he was eligible—Rashid was required to demonstrate a

3 likelihood that he would be tortured in Pakistan with

4 government involvement or acquiescence. 8 C.F.R.

5 §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17(a), 1208.18(a)(1). We discern no

6 legal or constitutional error in the agency’s conclusion that

7 Rashid failed to meet his burden of proof. The IJ did not

8 err in excluding Rashid’s late-filed evidence given that IJs

9 have broad discretion to set and enforce filing deadlines,

10 Rashid’s counsel agreed to the hearing date and filing

11 deadline, and Rashid did not establish good cause for the

12 late filing. See

(c); Dedji v. Mukasey,

13

(2d Cir. 2008); Burger v. Gonzales, 498

(2d Cir. 2007). Given the failure of counsel

15 to timely submit evidence on Rashid’s behalf, the IJ was left

16 with only Rashid’s bare-bones application, a case summary

17 prepared by his lawyer, two news articles describing

18 unrelated suicide bombings in his hometown, and the 2015 State

19 Department human rights report. The IJ discussed this

20 limited evidence, so it was not overlooked. And the IJ’s

21 reliance on the lack of corroborating evidence in denying CAT 3 1 relief was permissible. See Chuilu Liu v. Holder,

193, 198 n.5 (2d Cir. 2009) (“[A] failure to corroborate can

3 suffice, without more, to support a finding that an alien has

4 not met his burden of proof.”); Savchuck v. Mukasey,

119, 124 (2d Cir. 2008) (CAT claim resting on a chain of

6 unsupported assumptions is too speculative to warrant

7 relief); Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS,

(2d

8 Cir. 2005) (“In the absence of solid support in the record,”

9 an asylum applicant’s fear is “speculative at best.”).

10 Nor do we discern any legal or constitutional error in

11 the BIA’s denial of remand. A motion to remand based on new

12 evidence is subject to the same rules as a motion to reopen,

13 and thus a movant’s failure to proffer previously unavailable

14 evidence or demonstrate his prima facie eligibility for

15 relief are permissible grounds for denying a motion to remand.

16

(c)(1); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2008) (a movant seeking remand must satisfy

18 the “heavy burden of demonstrating that the proffered new

19 evidence would likely alter the result in his case” (quotation

20 marks omitted)); Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 421

(2d Cir. 2005) (BIA may deny a motion to 4 1 remand for failure to provide evidence that was previously

2 unavailable). We discern no legal error in the BIA’s

3 determinations that the evidence was previously available,

4 and that the evidence would not change the outcome of the

5 case given Rashid’s burden to show that he would likely be

6 tortured by or with the acquiescence of authorities in

7 Pakistan.

8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

9 DENIED. As we have completed our review, the stay of removal

10 previously granted in this petition is VACATED.

11 12 FOR THE COURT: 13 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 14 Clerk of Court

5