Esperanza-Hernandez v. Garland

19-1550 Esperanza-Hernandez v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A206 883 420 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 12th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. — 5 — 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _________________________________________ — 12 — 13 MARIA ESPERANZA-HERNANDEZ, 14 Petitioner, — 15 — 16 v. 19-1550 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _________________________________________ — 22 — 23 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Esq., 24 Hempstead, NY. — 25 — 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Nehal 29 H. Kamani, 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 Maria Esperanza-Hernandez, a native and 10 citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a May 15, 2019, 11 decision of the BIA affirming a January 31, 2018, decision of 12 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 14 (“CAT”). In re Maria Esperanza-Hernandez, No. A206 883 420 15 (B.I.A. May 15, 2019), aff’g No. A206 883 420 (Immig. Ct. 16 N.Y. City Jan. 31, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 17 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 18 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 19 BIA, which affirmed the IJ’s decision without reaching all of 20 the reasons given by the IJ. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 21 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of 22 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(B); 23 Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195-96 (2d Cir. 2014). — 24 — — 2 — 1 To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of 2 removal, an applicant must show that she suffered past 3 persecution, or has a well-founded fear or likelihood of 4 future persecution, on account of race, religion, 5 nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 6 political opinion. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 (a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(A), 7 (B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A). We find no error in the agency’s 8 determination that Esperanza-Hernandez failed to establish 9 past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution 10 on account her membership in a particular social group. — 11 — 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13 (b)(1)-(2) (petitioner must show a nexus to 12 a protected ground to establish past persecution or well13 founded fear of future persecution). 14 Even assuming arguendo that the Petitioner testified 15 credibly and that her proposed social group is cognizable, 16 Esperanza-Hernandez’s claim fails, because the BIA reasonably 17 concluded that she failed to establish that the threats she 18 received and harm she feared were or would be on account of 19 her membership in her proposed social group of “[w]omen who 20 do not have security in [El Salvador] and are targeted by the 21 [gangs],” Certified Administrative Record (“CAR”) 104. The 22 IJ found that the Petitioner “has not shown that [she was — 3 — 1 persecuted] for any reason other than [a gang’s] ongoing 2 criminal efforts.” CAR 39. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, 3 holding that “there is no clear error in the [IJ’s] findings 4 of fact regarding motive.” CAR 3. On appeal, Esperanza5 Hernandez does not point to any evidence in the record that 6 would compel a contrary conclusion. See 8 U.S.C. 7 § 1252(b)(4)(B). 8 Because Esperanza-Hernandez failed to establish a nexus 9 to a protected ground, the agency did not err in denying 10 asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. 11 §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(A), (B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A). 12 Esperanza-Hernandez abandoned her CAT claim by not raising it 13 in her brief. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 , 14 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). 15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 16 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 17 stays VACATED. 18 FOR THE COURT: 19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 20 Clerk of Court — 4 —