19

- 30 Gonzalez

- Polanco v. Rosen BIA Christensen, IJ A 206 846 591/592 

### 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 FED**  **ERAL 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 1**  **3 t**  **h da**  **y of J**  **a n**  **u a**  **r y**  **, two thousand twenty**  **** 4
**one .**  5 6 **PRESENT:** 7 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES ,**  8 **ROBERT D. SACK ,**  9 **WILLIAM J. NARDINI ,**  10 **Circuit Judges.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **MARIA FERNANDA GONZALEZ -**  **POLANCO ,**  14 **CHRISTOPHER MAURICIO ORELLANA**   15 ** GONZALEZ** 16 **Petitioner s**  **,** 17 18
**v. 19** 
**- 30**  19 **NAC** 20 **JEFFREY A. ROSEN ,**  **ACTING UNITED**  21 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **,** 22 **Respondent .**  **1** 23

**_____________________________________** 24

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen is substituted for former Attorney General William P. Barr

.2 1 **FOR PETITIONER S**  **:** H. Raymond Fasano , Attorney , 2 Youman, Madeo & Fasano, LLP , New 3 York, NY. 4 5 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Jeffery Bossert Clark , Acting 6 Assistant Attorney General ; 7 Shelley R. Goad , Assistant 8 Director; Kristin Moresi , Trial 9 Attorney, Office of Immigration 10 Litigation, United States 11 Department of Justice, Washington, 12 D C. 13
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 14
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is here by 15
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 16

is DENIED

. 17

Petitioner s Maria Fernanda Gonzalez

- Polanco and her son 18
Christopher Mauricio Orellana

- Gonzalez , both native s and 19

citizen s of Guatemala , seek review of a December 3, 2018 , 20

decision of the BIA affirming an October 23, 2017 , decision 21
of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 22
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 23

(“CAT”)

. In re Maria Fernanda Gonzalez

- Polanco , Christopher 24

Mauricio Orellana

- Gonzalez , No. A 206 846 591/592 (B.I.A. 25

Dec. 3, 2018 ), aff’g No. A 206 846 591/592 (Immig. Ct. New 26
York City Oct. 23, 2017 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity 27
with the underlying facts and procedural history. 283 We have reviewed the decision of the IJ as supplemented 1
by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 2
Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 3

established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder , 4

762 F.3d 191, 195 (2 d Cir. 2014) (reviewing factual findings 5
for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo); Gjolaj 6
v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs. , 468 F.3d 140, 7
143 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing nexus determination for 8
substantial evidence). 9

An asylum app licant must establish past persecution or a 10

well

- founded fear of future persecution and that “ race, 11
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 12
group, or political opinion was or will be at least one 13

central reason for persecuting the applican t

. ” 8 U.S.C. § 14
1158(b)(1)(B)(i) ; see also Paloka , 762 F.3d at 195 (“the 15
applicant must establish both that the group itself was 16
cognizable and that the alleged persecutors targeted the 17
applicant on account of her membership in that group” 18
(internal citati ons and quotation marks omitted) )

. Although 19
persecutors may have more than one motive, see Acharya v. 20

Holder , 761 F.3d 289, 297 (2d Cir. 2014), “the protected 214 ground cannot play a minor role . . . [t]hat is, it cannot be 1
incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to 2

another reason for harm,” In re J

- B

- N

- & S

- M

- , 24 I. & N. 3

Dec. 208, 214 (B.I.A. 2007). 4
The agency reasonably determined that Gonzalez

- Polanco 5
failed to show that her membership in her proposed social 6

group of single mothers without male protection was one 7

central reason that gang members targeted her for extortion. 8

Gonzalez

- Polanco testified that gang members extorted her 9
because they believed she had money from her partner in the 10

United States. And she had no evidence that the gang members 11
would have attempted to extort her if they did not think she 12
could pay

. Accordingly, the record reflects that the gang 13
members’ motivation was financial gain, not to harm her on 14
account of a protected ground. See Ucelo

- Gomez v. Mukasey , 15

509 F.3d 70, 73 (2d Cir. 2007) ( “When the harm visited upon 16
members of a group is attribut able to the incentives presented 17
to ordinary criminals rather than to persecution, the scales 18
are tipped away from considering those people a particular 19
social group within the meaning of the INA.” ); Melgar de 20

Torres v. Reno , 191 F.3d 307, 314 (2d Cir

. 199 9) 215 (“general crime conditions are not a stated ground” for 1
asylum ). 2
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 3

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 4

stays VACATED. 5

FOR THE COURT: 6 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 7 Clerk of Court 8