09-0783-ag
Valdez-Munoz v. Holder
BIA
Nelson, IJ
A099 678 222
A099 678 223
A094 824 813
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.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 27 th day of April, two thousand ten.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 REENA RAGGI,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 DINA YANCI VALDEZ-MUNOZ, FERNANDO
14 PEREZ VILLALOBOS, FERNANDO ALEXIS
15 PEREZ VALDEZ,
16 Petitioners,
17
18 v. 09-0783-ag
19 NAC
20 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 ______________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Jeffrey E. Baron, Baron, Mundie &
26 Shelkin, PC, New York, New York.
27
28 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
29 General, Civil Division; Luis E.
30 Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel;
31 Joseph D. Hardy, Trial Attorney,
32 Office of Immigration Litigation,
33 United States Department of Justice,
34 Washington, D.C.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 The Petitioners Dina Yanci Valdez-Munoz, Fernando Perez
6 Villalobos, and Fernando Alexis Perez Valdez, natives and
7 citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a January 30, 2009
8 order of the BIA affirming the May 18, 2007 decision of
9 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Barbara A. Nelson denying their
10 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
11 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Valdez-
12 Munoz, Nos. A099 678 222, A099 678 223, A094 824 813 (B.I.A.
13 Jan. 30, 2009), aff’g Nos. A099 678 222, A099 678 223, A094
14 824 813 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 18, 2007). We assume the
15 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
16 procedural history in this case.
17 Under the circumstances of this case, this Court
18 reviews the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination.
19 See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008).
20 The applicable standards of review are well-established.
21 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562
22 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). The IJ’s finding that
2
1 Villalobos failed to establish a particular social group
2 comprised of Salvadoran individuals who have testified
3 against organized crime is supported by substantial
4 evidence.
5 In arguing that he has demonstrated the requisite
6 visibility necessary to establish membership in a particular
7 social group under the INA, Villalobos relies primarily on
8 language from Matter of C-A-, 23 I&N Dec. 951, 960 (BIA
9 2006), in which the BIA, in analyzing whether confidential
10 informants were a particular social group, noted that
11 “[r]ecognizability or visibility is limited to those
12 informants who are discovered because they appear as
13 witnesses or otherwise come to the attention of cartel
14 members.” Villalobos’s reliance on this language, however,
15 is misplaced. Despite recognizing that informants who
16 appear as witnesses are visible to their potential
17 persecutors, the BIA ultimately concluded that neither
18 confidential nor non-confidential informants could establish
19 membership in a particular social group. See Matter of
20 C-A-, 23 I&N at 960. In Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, we noted
21 that, “[w]hen the harm visited upon members of a group is
22 attributable to the incentives presented to ordinary
3
1 criminals rather than to persecution, the scales are tipped
2 away from considering those people ‘a particular social
3 group’ within the meaning of the INA.” 509 F.3d 70, 73 (2d
4 Cir. 2007). Given the 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights
5 Practices for El Salvador which indicate a countrywide
6 problem with the “intimidation of victims and witnesses
7 [which] made it difficult to identify, arrest, and prosecute
8 criminals,” the IJ reasonably found that Villalobos “has not
9 demonstrated that his problem is anything other than a fear
10 of [reprisal] for having been a witness against criminals in
11 a murder trial.”
12 Villalobos has therefore failed to present evidence
13 that “any ‘group,’ as actually perceived” by the criminals
14 he testified against, “is much narrower than the general
15 population” of El Salvador. Matter of C-A-, 23 I&N at 961.
16 We therefore find no error in the IJ’s determination that
17 Villalobos’s fear was based on nothing more than possible
18 retribution from the individuals against whom he testified,
19 which does not qualify as a protected ground under the INA.
20 See Ucelo-Gomez, 509 F.3d at 73; Matter of C-A-, 23 I&N at
21 961.
22 Because Villalobos’s claims for asylum and withholding
4
1 of removal share the same factual predicate, his claim for
2 withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Paul v.
3 Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
4 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
5 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
6 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
7 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
8 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
9 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
10 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
11 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
12
13 FOR THE COURT:
14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
15
16
17
5