19-1550
Esperanza-Hernandez v. Garland
BIA
Christensen, IJ
A206 883 420
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 12th day of May, two thousand twenty-one.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DENNIS JACOBS,
8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
9 GERARD E. LYNCH,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _________________________________________
12
13 MARIA ESPERANZA-HERNANDEZ,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 19-1550
17 NAC
18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _________________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Esq.,
24 Hempstead, NY.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant
27 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith,
28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Nehal
29 H. Kamani, Trial Attorney, Office
1 of Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, DC.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Petitioner Maria Esperanza-Hernandez, a native and
10 citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a May 15, 2019,
11 decision of the BIA affirming a January 31, 2018, decision of
12 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of
13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
14 (“CAT”). In re Maria Esperanza-Hernandez, No. A206 883 420
15 (B.I.A. May 15, 2019), aff’g No. A206 883 420 (Immig. Ct.
16 N.Y. City Jan. 31, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity
17 with the underlying facts and procedural history.
18 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the
19 BIA, which affirmed the IJ’s decision without reaching all of
20 the reasons given by the IJ. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417
21 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of
22 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
23 Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195-96 (2d Cir. 2014).
24
2
1 To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of
2 removal, an applicant must show that she suffered past
3 persecution, or has a well-founded fear or likelihood of
4 future persecution, on account of race, religion,
5 nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
6 political opinion. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(A),
7 (B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A). We find no error in the agency’s
8 determination that Esperanza-Hernandez failed to establish
9 past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution
10 on account her membership in a particular social group.
11 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)-(2) (petitioner must show a nexus to
12 a protected ground to establish past persecution or well-
13 founded fear of future persecution).
14 Even assuming arguendo that the Petitioner testified
15 credibly and that her proposed social group is cognizable,
16 Esperanza-Hernandez’s claim fails, because the BIA reasonably
17 concluded that she failed to establish that the threats she
18 received and harm she feared were or would be on account of
19 her membership in her proposed social group of “[w]omen who
20 do not have security in [El Salvador] and are targeted by the
21 [gangs],” Certified Administrative Record (“CAR”) 104. The
22 IJ found that the Petitioner “has not shown that [she was
3
1 persecuted] for any reason other than [a gang’s] ongoing
2 criminal efforts.” CAR 39. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision,
3 holding that “there is no clear error in the [IJ’s] findings
4 of fact regarding motive.” CAR 3. On appeal, Esperanza-
5 Hernandez does not point to any evidence in the record that
6 would compel a contrary conclusion. See 8 U.S.C.
7 § 1252(b)(4)(B).
8 Because Esperanza-Hernandez failed to establish a nexus
9 to a protected ground, the agency did not err in denying
10 asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
11 §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(A), (B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A).
12 Esperanza-Hernandez abandoned her CAT claim by not raising it
13 in her brief. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540,
14 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005).
15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
16 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
17 stays VACATED.
18 FOR THE COURT:
19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
20 Clerk of Court
4