13-879
Cruz-Ferreyra v. Holder
BIA
Verrillo, IJ
A087 772 135
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.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 20th day of November, two thousand fourteen.
PRESENT:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Chief Judge,
REENA RAGGI,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
DANIEL ANDRES SANTA CRUZ-FERREYRA,
Petitioner,
v. 13-879
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Ira E. Berliner, Berliner Law
Offices, Port Chester, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General; Anthony C. Payne, Senior
Litigation Counsel; Jesse M. Bless,
Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Daniel Andres Santa Cruz-Ferreyra, a native and citizen
of Peru, seeks review of a February 28, 2013, decision of
the BIA affirming the May 18, 2011, decision of an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Daniel Andres
Santa Cruz-Ferreyra, No. A087 772 135 (B.I.A. Feb. 28,
2013), aff’g No. A087 772 135 (Immig. Ct. Hartford May 18,
2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen
v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The
applicable standards of review are well established. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510,
513 (2d Cir. 2009).
Cruz-Ferreyra asserted past persecution and a fear of
future persecution because he was threatened by his superior
officer after accusing that officer of corruption. Because
2
he does not challenge the agency’s finding that the
unfulfilled threats did not rise to the level of
persecution, the only issue before us is whether his fear of
future harm is objectively reasonable. The agency found
that, although credible, Cruz-Ferreyra failed to establish
an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of future
persecution. To be objectively reasonable, a fear must have
“solid support” in the record and be more than speculative.
Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 128-29 (2d Cir. 2005)
(per curiam).
The agency’s determination in this case was supported
by substantial evidence. First, the past threats against
Cruz-Ferreyra did not rise to the level of persecution.
Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d
Cir. 2006). Second, Cruz-Ferreyra’s family has remained in
Peru unharmed. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307,
313 (2d Cir. 1999). Finally, Cruz-Ferreyra failed to
establish that the Peruvian government was unwilling or
unable to protect him. He testified that he did not attempt
to notify police or other government officials when he
witnessed corruption. Although Cruz-Ferreyra stated that he
believed reporting the corruption would be futile, the
3
country conditions evidence indicates that the government is
working to combat corruption in the police force. See Rizal
v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 84, 92 (2d Cir. 2006) (reiterating
that persecution is harm inflicted by a governmental actor
or independent actors who the government is unwilling or
unable to control). While Cruz-Ferreyra asserts that the
agency applied an overly rigorous standard and that his
testimony alone established his entitlement to relief, there
is absolutely no support for his contention that credible
testimony alone is sufficient as a matter of law to
demonstrate entitlement to relief. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); see Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d
138, 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (while “credible testimony was
sufficient to demonstrate a genuine subjective fear of
future persecution, more was needed to demonstrate the
objective reasonableness of that fear”). Under these
circumstances, the agency had substantial evidence to
support its finding that Cruz-Ferreyra failed to establish a
well-founded fear of persecution. See Jian Xing Huang, 421
F.3d at 129; Melgar de Torres, 191 F.3d at 313.
Cruz-Ferreyra has abandoned any challenge to the BIA’s
denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief by failing
4
to sufficiently address those forms of relief in his brief
to this Court. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540,
541 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). Even if raised, such a challenge
would necessarily fail for the reasons given above. See
Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119 (2d Cir. 2010)
(“Withholding of removal and CAT relief entail a greater
likelihood of future persecution than that required for the
grant of asylum.”).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5