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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for**  1 **the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States** 2 **Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the** 3 **3 rd**  **day of January, two thousand seventeen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **REENA RAGGI,** 7 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 8 **DENNY CHIN,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **JAIME VEGA-TINOCO,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 15-39** 16 **NAC** 17 **LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Jose Perez, Law Offices of Jose 23 Perez, P.C., Syracuse, New York. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Margaret Kuehne 27 Taylor, Senior Litigation Counsel; 28 Kate D. Balaban, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, D.C. 322 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 3

DENIED. 4 Petitioner Jaime Vega-Tinoco, a native and citizen of 5 Mexico, seeks review of a December 9, 2014 decision of the BIA 6 denying his motion to reopen. In re Jaime Vega-Tinoco, No. A200 7 562 724 (B.I.A. Dec. 9, 2014). In conducting our review, we 8 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 9 procedural history in this case. 10 “We review the denial of motions to reopen immigration 11 proceedings for abuse of discretion, mindful that motions to 12 reopen ‘are disfavored.’” Ali v. Gonzales , 448 F.3d 515, 517 13 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323 14 (1992)). A movant’s failure to establish a prima facie case 15 for the underlying substantive relief sought is a proper and 16 sufficient basis for declining to reopen. See INS v. Abudu , 17 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988). 18 The BIA did not err in finding that Vega-Tinoco failed to 19

demonstrate his prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding 20 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 21 based on the kidnapping of his sister in Mexico. See id . At 22 his merits hearing—after his sister had been 233 kidnapped—Vega-Tinoco testified that no one in Mexico was 1 looking for him, and he proffered no evidence that anyone in 2 Mexico seeks to harm any member of his family other than his 3 sister. Accordingly, the BIA did not err in finding his fear 4 of future persecution and torture speculative. See Jian Xing 5 Huang v. INS , 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (“In the absence 6 of solid support in the record . . ., [an applicant’s] fear is 7 speculative at best”). Because Vega-Tinoco thus failed to 8

demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief, the BIA did not 9 abuse its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. See 10

Abudu , 485 U.S. at 104. 11 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 12 DENIED. Petitioner’s pending request for oral argument is 13 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 14 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b). 15

FOR THE COURT: 16 Catherine O = Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 17