15-4012
Ajeataz-Cor v. Sessions
BIA
Straus, IJ
A205 497 503
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.
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
19th day of May, two thousand seventeen.
PRESENT:
GUIDO CALABRESI,
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
CHRISTOPHER F, DRONEY,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
HIGINIO MEDRANO AJEATAZ-COR,
Petitioner,
v. 15-4012
NAC
JEFFERSON B.SESSIONS III, UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Osakwe, Hartford, CT.
FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General; Douglas
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Jefferson B.
Sessions III is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch as
Respondent.
E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director;
Rebekah Nahas, Trial Attorney,
Office of Immigration Litigation,
United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
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.
Petitioner Higinio Medrano Ajeataz-Cor, a native and
citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a November 19, 2015,
decision of the BIA affirming a December 1, 2014, decision of
an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). In re Higinio Medrano Ajeataz-Cor, No. A205 497 503
(B.I.A. Nov. 19, 2015), aff’g No. A205 497 503 (Immig. Ct.
Hartford Dec. 1, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity
with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
We review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions here “for
the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland
Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). 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). Because Ajeataz-Cor does not challenge the BIA’s waiver
2
determination, the only issues before us are whether
Ajeataz-Cor satisfied his burden for withholding of removal and
CAT relief based on his asserted fear of future persecution and
torture.
Absent past persecution, an alien may establish
eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT relief by
demonstrating a likelihood of persecution or torture.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2), (c)(2); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft,
357 F.3d 169, 178, 184-85 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, the agency
acknowledged evidence that Guatemala suffers from rampant gang
activity, including extortion. However, general violence in
a country is insufficient to show that an individual is at a
particular risk of harm. Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d
307, 314 & n.3 (2d Cir. 1999). Moreover, as the IJ found, the
record contained no evidence that gangs in Guatemala target
individuals, such as Ajeataz-Cor, based on their connections
to the United States. See Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d
125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (“In the absence of solid support in
the record . . . , [an applicant’s] fear is speculative at
best.”).
Ajeataz-Cor provided no testimony or other evidence to
support the statement in his application that he had friends
3
who were killed when they returned to Guatemala because they
had lived in the United States. And he did not allege any other
basis for fearing persecution or torture, admitting that he does
not fear that gang members will attempt to recruit him, and that
they had not tried to recruit his sons.
Accordingly, because Ajeataz-Cor failed to demonstrate a
likelihood of persecution or torture, he failed to establish
his eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT relief. We
do not reach the agency’s alternative bases for denying
relief—Ajeataz-Cor’s failure to demonstrate a nexus between the
harm he fears and a protected ground (for withholding of
removal) and government acquiescence (for CAT). See INS v.
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts
and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4