13-1256
Vargas-Cortez v. Holder
BIA
Straus, IJ
A200 689 048
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 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 United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 16th day of May, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 ISMAEL VARGAS-CORTEZ,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 13-1256
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22 FOR PETITIONER: Elyssa N. Williams, New Haven,
23 Connecticut.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Michelle E. Gorden Latour,
27 Deputy Director; Norah A. Schwarz,
28 Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of
29 Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Ismael Vargas-Cortez (“Vargas”), a native and citizen
6 of Mexico, seeks review of a March 13, 2013, decision of the
7 BIA affirming the March 28, 2011, decision of an Immigration
8 Judge (“IJ”), which denied his application for asylum,
9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ismael Vargas-Cortez, No.
11 A200 689 048 (B.I.A. Mar. 13, 2013), aff’g No. A200 689 048
12 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Mar. 28, 2011). We assume the parties’
13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
14 in this case.
15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
16 the decision of the IJ as modified and supplemented by the
17 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d
18 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268,
19 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are
20 well established. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510,
21 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
22
23
2
1 Vargas argues that he demonstrated a well-founded fear
2 of future persecution at the hands of Mexican gangs on two
3 bases: (1) the political opinion imputed to him and his
4 family because of his membership in the Mexican army and
5 police force between 1992 and 1997 and his cousin’s
6 deputyship in the government; and (2) his membership in
7 particular social groups consisting of deportees perceived
8 to be wealthy and individuals affiliated with the
9 government. An applicant must establish an objectively
10 reasonable fear of future persecution on account of his
11 race, religion, nationality, actual or imputed political
12 opinion, or particular social group. See 8 U.S.C.
13 §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b), 1231(b)(3)(A).
14 Vargas testified that Mexican gangs attempted to extort
15 money from his family by threatening to kidnap his sister.
16 The IJ reasonably found that the callers targeted Vargas’s
17 family in pursuit of funds and not due to Vargas’s residence
18 in the United States or his and his cousin’s government
19 service. According to the police report filed by his
20 sister, the callers did not mention Vargas or his cousin, he
21 testified that neither he nor his family were politically
22 active, and he had not been affiliated with the Mexican
3
1 government for over 15 years. Moreover, the 2010 U.S. State
2 Department travel warning and 2011 Embassy Notices note that
3 kidnapping and extortion of wealthy Mexicans and foreigners
4 is widespread across Mexico. As perceived wealth is not a
5 protected ground, and general civil strife does not
6 establish persecution, the agency did not err in denying
7 asylum and withholding of removal. See Ucelo-Gomez v.
8 Gonzales, 509 F.3d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that harm
9 purely motivated by wealth is not persecution); Melgar de
10 Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 314 n.3 (2d Cir. 1999)
11 (finding that general civil strife does not establish a
12 well-founded fear of persecution).
13 The IJ also reasonably found that Vargas did not
14 establish a likelihood that he would be tortured by Mexican
15 gangs because, despite the high level of gang violence,
16 Vargas testified that none of his family living in Mexico
17 had been harmed and he did not provide evidence that the
18 Mexican government permits gang violence. See Khouzam v.
19 Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 171 (2d Cir. 2004) (requiring
20 applicant for CAT relief to show that torture would be
21 perpetrated with the government’s consent or acquiescence);
22 Melgar de Torres, 191 F.3d at 313 (holding that where
4
1 similarly situated family members continued to live in
2 alien’s native country, claim of future harm was
3 diminished).
4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
5 DENIED. As we have completed our review, Vargas’s motion
6 for a stay of removal is DISMISSED as moot.
7 FOR THE COURT:
8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
9
10
5