18-1584
Rivas-Cruz v. Barr
BIA
Verrillo, IJ
A206 799 941
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 7th day of August, two thousand twenty.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
9 STEVEN J. MENASHI,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 JUAN ARNOLDO RIVAS-CRUZ,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 18-1584
17 NAC
18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Ramiro Alcazar, Meriden, CT.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney
26 General; Leslie McKay, Senior
27 Litigation Counsel; Corey L.
28 Farrell, Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, DC.
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
7 is DENIED.
8 Petitioner Juan Arnoldo Rivas-Cruz, a native and citizen
9 of Honduras, seeks review of an April 25, 2018 decision of
10 the BIA affirming an August 22, 2017 decision of an
11 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum,
12 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
13 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Juan Arnoldo Rivas-Cruz, No.
14 A 206 799 941 (B.I.A. Apr. 25, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 799 941
15 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Aug. 22, 2017). We assume the parties’
16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
17 in this case.
18 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. See
19 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d
20 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well
21 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Y.C. v. Holder,
22 741 F.3d 325, 332 (2d Cir. 2013).
2
1 Rivas-Cruz’s argument that the agency lacked
2 jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because his notice
3 to appear did not include a hearing date or time is foreclosed
4 by Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 922 F.3d 101, 110–12 (2d Cir. 2019).
5 Because Rivas-Cruz has not challenged the denial of his
6 CAT claim, we address only asylum and withholding of removal.
7 For asylum and withholding of removal, “the applicant must
8 establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a
9 particular social group, or political opinion was or will be
10 at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.”
11 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); id. § 1231(b)(3)(A); see also
12 Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 348 (BIA 2010). There
13 may be “more than one motive for mistreatment, as long as at
14 least one central reason for the mistreatment is on account
15 of a protected ground.” Acharya v. Holder, 761 F.3d 289, 297
16 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). An
17 applicant “must provide some evidence of [a persecutor’s
18 motives], direct or circumstantial.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
19 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992); see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of
20 Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 291 (2d Cir. 2007).
3
1 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination
2 that Rivas-Cruz failed to demonstrate that the harm he
3 suffered or fears was or would be on account of his membership
4 in his proposed particular social group of “children with
5 parents in the United States,” even assuming that the proposed
6 group is cognizable. Rivas-Cruz’s testimony that the gang
7 robbed him because they knew he had a parent in the United
8 States was speculative. He acknowledged that the gang only
9 wanted money, that other people without a parent in the United
10 States were robbed, and that the gang was less likely to
11 target poor people with relatives in the United States. And
12 as Rivas-Cruz concedes and the country conditions evidence
13 confirms, extortion and violence at the hands of gang members
14 impacts the population of Honduras beyond children who have
15 a parent in the United States.
16 This record provides substantial evidence for the
17 conclusion that Rivas-Cruz was targeted because he was
18 thought to have money. Harm as a result of “general crime
19 conditions” does not constitute persecution on account of a
20 protected ground. Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307,
21 314 (2d Cir. 1999); see also Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d
4
1 70, 74 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[H]arm motivated purely by wealth is
2 not persecution.”). This nexus determination is dispositive
3 of both asylum and withholding of removal, so we need not
4 reach the agency’s additional finding that Rivas-Cruz’s
5 proposed particular social group was not cognizable. See INS
6 v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule
7 courts and agencies are not required to make findings on
8 issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results
9 they reach.”).
10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
11 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
12 stays VACATED.
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
15 Clerk of Court
5