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 

New York, on the 16th 4 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 
2

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 
3

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 
4

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) 
5

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-G13 , 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 
6

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