17-981
Zeferino Carranza v. Sessions
BIA
Connelly, IJ
A206 471 686
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 16th day of May, two thousand eighteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JON O. NEWMAN
10 PETER W. HALL,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 MAURICIO ZEFERINO CARRANZA,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 17-981
18 NAC
19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Samuel N. Iroegbu, Albany, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Stephen J.
28 Flynn, Assistant Director; Robert
29 M. Stalzer, Trial Attorney; Arthur
1 L. Rabin, Trial Attorney, Office
2 of Immigration Litigation, United
3 States Department of Justice,
4 Washington, DC.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
9 is DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in remaining part.
10 Petitioner Mauricio Zeferino Carranza, a native and
11 citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a March 9, 2017, decision
12 of the BIA affirming a September 9, 2016, decision of an
13 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Carranza’s application for
14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mauricio Zeferino
16 Carranza, No. A 206 471 686 (B.I.A. Mar. 9, 2017), aff’g No.
17 A 206 471 686 (Batavia Sept. 9, 2016). We assume the parties’
18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
19 in this case.
20 The Government moves for summary denial of Carranza’s
21 petition for review. Summary denial is warranted only if a
22 petition is frivolous, Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir.
23 1995). Because Carranza has filed his merits brief, we
2
1 decline to address whether the petition is frivolous and
2 instead treat the Government’s motion as a response to that
3 brief.
4 We have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions “for
5 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland
6 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The standards of
7 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
8 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513-14 (2d Cir. 2009).
9 I. Time Bar Ruling
10 An asylum applicant must file an application within one
11 year of arrival in the United States or must demonstrate,
12 inter alia, “extraordinary circumstances relating to the
13 delay in filing an application.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B),
14 (D). Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s finding that
15 an application is untimely is limited to “constitutional
16 claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3),
17 1252(a)(2)(D). No such question is implicated here because
18 the IJ considered Carranza’s explanation that he did not apply
19 for asylum on entering the United States because he was young
20 and unfamiliar with U.S. immigration law, but found that it
21 was not an extraordinary circumstance sufficient to explain
3
1 a delay of approximately 27 years. We dismiss the petition
2 as to asylum because Carranza merely challenges the IJ’s
3 factual determinations, which we lack jurisdiction to review.
4 See Joaquin-Porras v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 172, 180 (2d Cir.
5 2006).
6 II. Merits
7 To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must
8 establish that his “life or freedom would be threatened” in
9 the country of removal on one of five statutory grounds:
10 “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
11 social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C.
12 § 1231(b)(3)(A); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); Ramsameachire v.
13 Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). The agency did
14 not err in finding that Carranza failed to establish his
15 eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal insofar as
16 those claims were based on the threatening actions of a cartel
17 member. As the agency concluded, threats that cartel members
18 would harm Carranza if he did not agree to sell drugs for the
19 cartel did not constitute past persecution. See Gui Ci Pan
20 v. U.S. Att’y General, 449 F.3d 408, 412-13 (2d Cir. 2006)
4
1 (recognizing that unfulfilled threats alone do not constitute
2 persecution).
3 The agency did not err in finding that Carranza failed
4 to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution
5 because he did not prove that his fear was objectively
6 reasonable. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(i); Ramsameachire, 357
7 F.3d at 178. He conceded that he had no proof that the cartel
8 still existed or that its members would seek him out if he
9 returned to Mexico. Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d
10 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005). His proposed particular social
11 group of “young persons subject to potential gang or drug
12 cartel recruitment” is not cognizable. See Matter of S-E-G-
13 , 24 I. & N. Dec. 579, 586-88 (B.I.A. 2008). And Carranza’s
14 family members, including his siblings, remained unharmed in
15 Mexico. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d
16 Cir. 1999).
17 Moreover, Carranza did not establish eligibility for
18 protection under the CAT because he failed to show that he is
19 “more likely than not” to be tortured by or with the
20 acquiescence of a government official on return to Mexico.
21 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). Although he
5
1 explained that he is afraid the drug cartel will torture and
2 kill him if he returns, he did not demonstrate that an
3 official of the Mexican government would acquiesce in the
4 commission of such harm. Id.
5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
6 DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction with respect to asylum,
7 and DENIED in remaining part with respect to withholding of
8 removal and CAT relief.
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
6