20

- 2800 Vasquez v. Garland BIA Ruehle , IJ A 209 449 607 

### 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.**
**At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thu**  **rgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of**  3 **New York, on the 2**  **n d**  **da y of**  **November , two thousand**  **twenty**

  4 ** two.** 5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **RICHARD C. WESLEY ,**  8 **MICHAEL H. PARK ,**  9 **BETH ROBINSON ,**  10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **UBERTO GALICIA VASQUEZ ,**  14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16
**v. 20** 

**- 2800**  17 **NAC** 18 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 19 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 **Respondent**

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Frederick P. Korkosz, Esq., 24 Albany, NY

. 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Brian Boynton , Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General ; Keith I. 282 McManus , Assistant Director; 1 Rachel L. B ro wning , Trial 2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 D C. 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 petitio n for review 9

is DENIED

. 10

Petitioner Uberto Galicia Vasquez , a native and citizen 11

of Guatemala , seeks review of an August 3, 2020 , decision of 12

the BIA affirming an August 24, 2018 , decision of an 13
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for 14
withholding of removal

. In re Ub erto Galicia Vasquez , No. A 15

209 449 607 (B.I.A. Aug. 3 , 2020 ), aff’g No. A 209 449 607 16
(Immig. Ct. Buffalo Aug. 24, 2018 ). We assume the parties’ 17
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 18

We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 19
BIA, i.e., minus the IJ’s adverse credibility determination 20
because the BIA assumed credibility. See Xue Hong Yang v. 21
U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We 22
review factual findings for substantial evidence and 23
questions of law de novo. Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 510, 513 243 (2d Cir. 2009); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“the 1
administrative findings of fact are conclusive u nless any 2
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 3
contrary”). 4
To qualify for withholding of removal, Vasquez had to 5
show past persecution or that he will “ more likely than not ” 6
be persecuted in the future

. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b ) ; see W ei 7

Sun v. Sessions , 883 F.3d 23, 27

– 28 (2d Cir. 2018) 8
(“Eligibility for withholding of removal requires a clear 9
probability of persecution, i.e. , it is more likely than not 10
that the alien would be subject to persecution.” (ellipsis 11
and quotation marks omit ted)). The agency did not err in 12
finding that Vasquez failed to show past harm that rose to 13
the level of persecution or that his fear of future 14
persecution was objectively reasonable. 15
Vasquez testified that members of a drug cartel left 16

“ papers ” at his home telling his family he had to sell drugs 17
or the family “was going to pay for it” and that sometime in 18
2014 he received a call from people he could not identify 19
asking him to take drugs from one place to another, or across 20

the border. He could not recall if he received one or two 214 calls, but the caller threatened to kill him or someone in 1
his family if he did not sell drugs. He reported the call 2

to the police but could not give the caller’s name because he 3

did not know it. He was never physical ly harmed, and he did 4

not receive threats during the five months before he left 5

Guatemala in 2015

. Vasquez testified that that the only 6
physical harm to him or his family was that his sister was 7

killed in 2018 ; but he did not know who killed her or why. 8

B ased on this record, the agency reasonably determined that 9

Vasquez did not demonstrate harm rising to the level of past 10
persecution. See Ci Pan v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 449 F.3d 408, 11
412 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that courts have “rejected [ past 12
persecution] claims involving ‘unfulfilled’ threats”) ; see 13

also Jiang v. Gonzales , 500 F.3d 137, 141 (2d Cir. 2007) (an 14
applicant cannot claim persecution based on harm to a family 15

member unless the harm was on account of the same protected 16
ground that was the basis of the asylum claim and the 17
applicant was “ within the zone of risk ” whe n the family member 18

was harmed). 19
Vasquez also failed to establish “a clear probability ” 20
of future persecution, i.e. , that it was “more likely than 215 not” that he would be perse cuted if he returned to Guatemala

. 1

Wei Sun , 883 F.3d at 27

– 28 ; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b ) (2 )

. 2
He testified that he stayed in Guatemala for five months 3

without incident after the last threat ; his mother, wife, and 4
daughter remained unharmed and had no further communication s 5
from cartels or drug dealers ; and he had no evidence to 6

connect his sister’s death in 2018 to the threats he received 7

before he left Guatemala

. See Huang v. U.S. INS , 421 F.3d 8

125, 12 9 (2d Cir. 2005 ) (“ In the absence of solid support in 9

the record . . . [applicant’s] fear is speculative at best. ”). 10
Because the agency did not err in finding that Vasquez 11
failed to meet his burden to show past persecution or a clear 12
probability of future persecution, we need not consider his 13
remaining arguments regarding the Guatemalan government’s 14
ability to protect hi m or whether his social group is 15
cognizable. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) 16
(“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to 17
make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary 18
to the results they reach.”). 19

206 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 2

stays VACATED. 3

FOR THE COURT: 4 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 5 Clerk of Court 6