Ramrup v. Attorney General of the United States
Docket: No. 09-1351
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; November 9, 2010; Federal Appellate Court
Gangadei Parbhu Ramrup, a Guyanese citizen, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that dismissed her appeal against an Immigration Judge's (IJ) removal order. She entered the U.S. in 2001 as a non-immigrant visitor and was placed in removal proceedings by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2006 after failing to depart. Ramrup applied for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) but did not apply for asylum due to untimeliness. She testified about ethnic conflicts in Guyana, where the Afro-Guyanese majority controls the government and the Indo-Guyanese, to which Ramrup belongs, have faced violence and economic difficulties. Although the IJ found her testimony credible and noted corroborating evidence from the State Department’s 2001 Country Report regarding ethnic tensions, the IJ ruled that Ramrup did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution and denied her application for withholding of removal, instead granting voluntary departure. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision. Ramrup asserted that both the IJ and BIA incorrectly concluded that she did not meet her burden of proof regarding the likelihood of harm if returned to Guyana. The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and reviews both the IJ and BIA decisions. To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must show that it is more likely than not that they will face threats due to race, nationality, or political opinion. The court found that Ramrup did not provide sufficient objective evidence to substantiate her claim of a well-founded fear of persecution, as her previous political activities and the general violence during elections did not indicate she would be personally targeted. Additionally, her status as part of the Indo-Guyanese minority did not inherently establish a risk of persecution. Thus, the petition for review was denied. Racial and ethnic tensions alone do not amount to persecution, as established in Ahmed v. Ashcroft. The widespread discrimination against Palestinians in Saudi Arabia is insufficient to qualify as persecution. Claims of economic persecution based on ethnicity lack supporting evidence. Persecution may be indicated by severe economic disadvantage threatening life or freedom, but economic discrimination alone is inadequate. Ramrup did not provide evidence of being deliberately targeted. Consequently, the evidence does not contradict the findings of the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Additionally, Ramrup fails to demonstrate eligibility for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), as there is no indication she is likely to face torture if returned to Guyana. The petition for review is denied. Ramrup did not appeal the IJ's finding of no past persecution and does not assert that she herself suffered past persecution, though she mentions her family members experienced it.