15-39 

Vega-Tinoco v. Lynch 

BIA 

A200 562 724 

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 for 

2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

3rd 4 day of January, two thousand seventeen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 REENA RAGGI,

8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 

9 DENNY CHIN,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 JAIME VEGA-TINOCO, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 15-39 

17 NAC 

18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Jose Perez, Law Offices of Jose 

24 Perez, P.C., Syracuse, New York. 

25 

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant 

27 Attorney General; Margaret Kuehne 

28 Taylor, Senior Litigation Counsel; 

29 Kate D. Balaban, Trial Attorney, 

30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 

31 United States Department of Justice, 

32 Washington, D.C. 
2

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

4 DENIED. 

5 Petitioner Jaime Vega-Tinoco, a native and citizen of 

6 Mexico, seeks review of a December 9, 2014 decision of the BIA 

7 denying his motion to reopen. In re Jaime Vega-Tinoco, No. A200 

8 562 724 (B.I.A. Dec. 9, 2014). In conducting our review, we 

9 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 

10 procedural history in this case. 

11 “We review the denial of motions to reopen immigration 

12 proceedings for abuse of discretion, mindful that motions to 

13 reopen ‘are disfavored.’” Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 

14 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 

15 (1992)). A movant’s failure to establish a prima facie case 

16 for the underlying substantive relief sought is a proper and 

17 sufficient basis for declining to reopen. See INS v. Abudu, 

18 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988). 

19 The BIA did not err in finding that Vega-Tinoco failed to 

20 demonstrate his prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding 

21 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

22 based on the kidnapping of his sister in Mexico. See id. At 

23 his merits hearing—after his sister had been 
3

1 kidnapped—Vega-Tinoco testified that no one in Mexico was 

2 looking for him, and he proffered no evidence that anyone in 

3 Mexico seeks to harm any member of his family other than his 

4 sister. Accordingly, the BIA did not err in finding his fear 

5 of future persecution and torture speculative. See Jian Xing 

6 Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (“In the absence 

7 of solid support in the record . . ., [an applicant’s] fear is 

8 speculative at best”). Because Vega-Tinoco thus failed to 

9 demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief, the BIA did not 

10 abuse its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. See 

11 Abudu, 485 U.S. at 104. 

12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

13 DENIED. Petitioner’s pending request for oral argument is 

14 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 

15 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 

16 FOR THE COURT: 

17 Catherine O=Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court