Yaqoob v. Gonzales
Docket: No. 05-5952-ag
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; October 18, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
Petitioner Muhammad Yaqoob, a Pakistani national, seeks judicial review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming Immigration Judge (IJ) Philip J. Montante, Jr.'s denial of his asylum application, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Yaqoob argues that the IJ incorrectly determined his ineligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, despite his claims regarding political persecution related to his party. He also contends that he demonstrated "changed circumstances" justifying the late submission of his asylum application. The legal framework stipulates that an asylum application must be filed within one year of arrival in the U.S., unless "changed" or "extraordinary circumstances" are proven. The BIA's affirmation means the IJ's findings are reviewed with modifications, and factual determinations are upheld unless contradicted by a reasonable adjudicator. The IJ and BIA concluded that Yaqoob failed to prove timely application filing or qualifying circumstances for late filing, which are not subject to judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). Consequently, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the asylum denial. On the withholding of removal claim, the standard requires proof that returning to his home country would likely threaten Yaqoob's life or freedom. The court found substantial evidence supporting the agency's conclusion that he did not demonstrate past persecution, particularly given his testimony indicating no harm while in Pakistan. Thus, the court must dismiss the petition regarding the asylum application but retains jurisdiction over the withholding of removal claim, which also fails based on the evidence presented. Substantial evidence supports the agency's conclusion that the petitioner did not prove it is more likely than not that he would face threats to his life or freedom upon returning to Pakistan, as outlined in 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2) and relevant case law. The petitioner claimed fear of persecution due to his membership in a defunct political party but failed to provide compelling evidence to substantiate an objectively reasonable fear. He did not demonstrate that members of his party are systematically persecuted or that the government has a specific interest in targeting him. His testimony included secondhand reports of a friend’s kidnapping and his brother's closure of a store due to threats, which, while suggesting possible danger, do not strongly indicate that persecution is likely. The Immigration Judge (IJ) found no corroborative evidence supporting the petitioner’s claims. The petitioner’s claim under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) was inadequately addressed in his brief and is therefore considered waived. Even if not waived, the CAT claim lacks merit. Consequently, the petition for review is dismissed regarding the denial of the asylum application and denied concerning the withholding of removal and CAT relief claims.