19

- 4040 Guartazaca v. Garland BIA Wright, IJ A 088 440 840 

### 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 APP ENDIX 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 for the Second 1 Circuit, held a t the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 2 Square, in the City of New York, on the 2 3 r d d a y of F e b r u a r y , two thousand 3 twenty

- two. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 DENNIS JACOBS , 7 GUIDO CALABRESI , 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN , 9 Circuit Judges. 10

_____________________________________ 11 12 CARLOS GUARTAZACA, AKA CARLOS 13 UMBENO GUARTAZA QUINONES , 14 Petitioner , 15 16

v. 19

- 4040 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND , UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent

. 212 _____________________________________ 1 2 FOR PETITIONER : Edgar L. Fankbonner , New York , NY

. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark , Acting Assistant 5 Attorney General ; Stephen J. Flynn , 6 Assistant Director; Lynda A. Do , Trial 7 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 8 United States Department of Justice, 9 Washington, D C. 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 11
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 12

DECREED that the petitio n for review is DENIED

. 13

Petitioner Carlos Guartazaca , a native and citizen of Ecuador , seeks review 14

of a November 7 , 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a March 14, 2018 decision of 15
an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying withholding of removal and relief under the 16
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. In re Carlos Guartazaca , No. A 088 440 840 17
(B.I.A. Nov. 7, 2019 ), aff’g No. A 088 440 840 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 14, 2018 ). 18
We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 19
history. 20
We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the 21

BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); 22

Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s 233 factual findings for substantial evidence , and we review questions of law de novo. 1

See Paloka v. Holder , 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014)

. 2
An applicant for withholding of removal must show that his “ life or 3

freedom would be threatened in th [e] country [ of removal] because of

. . . race, 4
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political 5
opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)( 3)(A). We find no error in the agency’s conclusion 6
that Guartazaca failed to show a nexus between the motives of his alleged 7
attackers and his membership in his proposed social group of adolescent males 8
taking on patriarchal roles in their families

. See Paloka , 762 F.3d at 195 (“Whether 9
the requisite nexus exists depends on the views and motives of the persecutor.” 10
( citation and quotation marks omitted)); see also INS v. Elias

- Zacari as , 502 U.S. 478, 11
483 (1992) (requiring “ some evidence” of motive, “direct or circumstantial”). 12
Guartazaca argues that the gangs targeted him because of his status as an 13

adolescent ma le who was acting as the financial head of the family or had a 14
patriar chal role. But he testified that the central motivation for the gangs in 15
extorting people was money and acknowledged that they indiscriminately 16
targeted the entire community. Although t here may be “more than one motive 17

for mistreatment,” Guartazaca offered no evidence to show that the gang targeted 18
him because of his status in his family as opposed to a desire for monetary gain or 194 to increase its ranks. Acharya v. Holder , 761 F.3d 289, 297 (2d Cir. 2014) ( citation 1
omitted); see also Ucelo

- Gomez v. Mukasey , 509 F.3d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[H]arm 2
motivated purely by wealth is not persecution.”). And although Guartazaca 3
alleged that crime was ubiquitous in his home village, “general crime conditions” 4
are not a basis for withholding of removal

. Melgar de Torres v. Reno , 191 F.3d 307, 5
314 (2d Cir. 1999). 6

We also find no error in the agency’s denial of Guartazaca’s CAT claim. 7

Guartazaca had the burden to show that he will “more likely than not” be tortured 8
by or with the acquiescence of public officials. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c) (2) , 9
1208.17(a), 1208.18(a)(1). To assess whether torture is more likely than not to 10
occur, the agency considers “all evidence rel evant to the possibility of future 11
torture, including, but not limited to” (1) evidence of an applicant’s past torture; 12
(2) evidence that the applicant could safely relocate within the country of removal; 13
(3) evidence of “gross, flagrant [,] or mass” human rights violations in the country 14
of removal; and (4) other relevant information regarding country conditions. Id. 15
§ 1208.16(c)(3). An applicant “will never be able to show that he faces a more 16
likely than not chance of torture if one link in the chain ca nnot be shown to be 17
more likely than not to occur. It is the likelihood of all necessary events coming 18
together that must more likely than not lead to torture, and a chain of events 195 cannot be more likely than its least likely link.” Savchuck v. Mukasey , 518 F.3d 119, 1
123 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting In re J

–

F

– F

–

, 23 I. & N. Dec. 912, 918 n.4 (A.G. 2006)). 2
Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. Guartazaca’s 3
testimony that Ecuadorian gangs extorted and beat him is not sufficient to 4

establish torture. See 8 C.F.R. § § 1208.18(a)(2), (4) (defining torture as an “extreme 5

form of cruel and inhum an treatment” that “does not include lesser forms of cruel, 6

inhuman [,] or degrading treatment” and requiring, in relevant part, “severe 7
physical pain and suffering” or “threat of imminent death”); Kyaw Zwar Tun v. 8

INS , 445 F.3d 554, 567 (2d Cir. 2006) (“ [T ] orture requires proof of something more 9
severe than the kind of treatment that would suffice to prove persecution

. ”). 10

Mor eo ver, evidence of general crime does not establish that someone in 11

Guartazaca’s particular circumstances will more likely than not be tortured by 12
gangs in the future, particularly as he alleged that he was targeted previously 13

bec au se he was an adolescent and he is now in his thirties

. See Mu

- Xing Wang v. 14
Ashcroft , 320 F.3d 130, 144 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that evidence of incidents of 15

torture in an applicant’s country does not alone establish “that someone in his 16
particular alleged circumstances is more likely than not to be tortured” (emphasis 17
omitted)). Given the absence of eviden ce of torture, the agency did not err in 18
finding his claim speculative. See Jian Xing Huang v. INS , 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d 196 Cir. 2005) (“In the absence of solid support in the record . . . fear is speculative at 1
best.”). 2
For the foregoing reasons, the peti tion for review is DENIED

. All pending 3
motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED. 4

FOR THE COURT: 5 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 6 Clerk of Court 7