18

- 928 Ulanov v. Garland BIA Thompson, IJ A 209 012 787 

### 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.**
**At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the**  **Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 2**  **6 t**  **h da**  **y of M**  **a y**  **, two thousand twenty** 
**- one** 
**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOHN M. WALKER, JR. ,**  7 **DENNIS JACOBS ,**  8 **DENNY CHIN ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **JENNIFER DECOTEAU**  **ULANOV ,**  13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15
**v. 18** 

**- 928**  16 **NAC** 17 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 **Respondent**

**.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Gary J. Yerman , Esq., New York , 23 NY

. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Brian M. Boynton , Assistant 26 Attorney General ; Shelley R. Goad , 27 Assistant Director; Lisa 282 Morinelli , Trial Attorney, Office 1 of Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, D C. 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 petitio n for review 7

is DENIED

. 8

Petitioner Jennifer Decoteau Ulanov , a native and citizen 9

of Trinidad and Tobago , seeks review of a March 22, 2018 , 10

decision of the BIA affirming a n October 26, 2017 , decision 11
of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ulanov’s application 12

for asylum, withholding of remo val, and relief under the 13
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jennifer Decote au 14

Ulanov , No. A 209 012 787 (B.I.A. Mar. 22, 2018 ), aff’g No. A 15

209 012 787 (Immig. Ct. N

. Y

. City Oct. 26, 2017 ). We assume 16
the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 17
procedural history. 18

We review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. 19

See Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). 20

We review factual findings for substantial evidence and 21
questions of law de novo. See Wei Sun v. Sessions , 883 F.3d 22
23, 27 (2d Cir. 2018). 233 We find no error in the agency’s conclusion that Ulanov 1
is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. 2
Particularly serious crimes bar asylum and withholding of 3

removal. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). 4
Where, as here, an applicant’s conviction is not per se 5
particularly serious, the agency considers “(1) the nature of 6
the conviction, (2) the circumstances and underlying facts of 7
the conviction, (3) the type of sentence imposed and 8

(4) whether the type and circumstances of the crime indicate 9
that the alien will be a danger to the community.” Nethagani 10
v. Mukasey , 532 F.3d 150, 155 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal 11
quotation marks and citations omitted). The IJ applied the 12
proper factors and reasonably determined that Ulanov’s 13

convictions for grand larceny in the second degree, 21 counts 14
of forgery in the second degree, and 12 counts of falsifying 15

b usiness records in the first degree in violation of New York 16

law were particularly serious under the circumstances. The 17

IJ noted that Ulanov stole $755,000 from the property 18
management company for which she worked by depositing checks 19
into her personal accounts, doctoring bank statements, and 20
forging signatures , and pointed out that Ulanov was sentenced 214 to five years of probation after the sentencing judge no ted 1
she already had spent more than a year in jail

. Contrary to 2
Ulanov’s assertion, the agency was not required to separately 3
consider her danger to the community

. See Nethagani , 532 4
F.3d at 154 n.1, 155 ( deferring to BIA’s interpretation that 5
the particularly serious crime determination does not require 6
a separate danger to the community analysis). 7

We also find no error in the denial of CAT relief. We 8

review the denial of CAT relief “under the deferential 9

substantial

- evidence standard.” Nasrallah v. Barr , 140 S. 10
Ct. 1683, 169 3 (2020). An applicant has the burden to 11
“establish that it is more likely than not that . . . she 12
would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of 13

removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) ; see id. § 1208.17(a). 14
The agency reasonably concluded that Ulanov failed to 15

establish that her inabilit y to find employment and the 16

discrimination she would face as a criminal deportee would 17

amount to harm ris ing to the level of torture or involve the 18
requisite intent or government action or acquiescence. See 19

id. § 1208.18(a)(1) (defining torture as “seve re pain or 20
suffering, whether physical or mental, [that] is 215 intentionally inflicted on a person . . . at the instigation 1

of , or with the consent or acquiescence of , a public official 2

[ or other person ] acting in an official capacity” ). The 3
agency reasonabl y found too speculative Ulanov 's suggestion 4

that she would be unable to find shelter, forced into 5

homeless ness , and then subject ed to gender

- based violence 6

that would rise to the level of torture

. See Savchuck v. 7
Mukasey , 518 F.3d 119, 123

- - 24 (2d Cir. 20 08 ) (explaining 8

that petitioner " will never be able to show that he faces a 9
more likely than not chance of torture if one link in the 10
chain cannot be shown to be more likely than not to occur. 11
It is the likelihood of all necessary events coming together 12
that must more likely than not lea d to torture, and a chain 13
of events cannot be more likely than its least likely link. ” 14

( i nternal quotation marks omitted))

. As the agency 15
acknowledged, the country conditions evidence indicate d harsh 16

treatment of women ; however, such generalized violence does 17
not establish that someone in Ulanov’s particular 18
circumstances is more likely than not to face torture. See 19
Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Just

. , 432 F.3d 156, 160 (2d 20

Cir. 2005) (concluding that country reports of some torture 216 were insufficient to establish a CAT claim absent 1
“particularized evidence” that someone in applicant’s 2

circumstances would be tortured)

. 3
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 4

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 5

stays V ACATED. 6

FOR THE COURT: 7 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 8 Clerk of Court 9