Hugo Polycarp v. U.S. Attorney General

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 12, 2010
JOHN LEY
ACTING CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-11774
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A077-922-409
HUGO POLYCARPE,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(January 12, 2010)
Before BLACK, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 3 --

Hugo Polycarpe, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the
denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the
Immigration and Nationality Act and relief under the Convention Against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. INA §
241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c). The immigration
judge found that Polycarpe failed to prove that he suffered past persecution on
account of a protected ground or a probability of future persecution or torture if he
returns to Haiti, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision
without opinion. We deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the finding that Polycarpe did not suffer past
persecution on account of his political opinion. After Polycarpe and 300 members
of his village stole building supplies from government trucks, the government
issued a warrant for his arrest. Prosecution for a crime does not constitute
persecution unless the prosecution is based on a protected ground and the
punishment is sufficiently extreme to constitute persecution. Scheerer v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 445 F.3d 1311, 1315–16 (11th Cir. 2006). Prosecution is not a
disproportionate punishment for theft.
Substantial evidence also supports the finding that Polycarpe would not be
singled out for mistreatment on account of his political beliefs if he returned to
Haiti. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1); Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen ., 401 F.3d 1226,
2

-- 2 of 3 --

1231 (11th Cir. 2005). Polycarpe argues that members of Lavalas “came shooting
and looking” for him and the government cannot protect him from mob violence,
but Polycarpe evaded arrest with the assistance of a friend who was a member of
Lavalas. Polycarpe’s concerns about widespread lawlessness do not establish a
fear of persecution on account of protected ground. Polycarpe’s wife and children
have relocated within Haiti without incident. See Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440
F.3d 1247, 1259 (11th Cir. 2006).
We DENY Polycarpe’s petition for review.
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --