17-149 Arguijo-Anariba v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A206 625 565 

### 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** 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 27 th**  **day of March, two thousand nineteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,** 7 **ROBERT D. SACK,** 8 **REENA RAGGI,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **SONIA ARGUIJO-ANARIBA,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 17-149** 16 **NAC** 17 **WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Robert C. Ross, West Haven, CT. 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 25 Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, 26 Senior Litigation Counsel; Deitz 27 P. Lefort, Trial Attorney, Office 28 of Immigration Litigation, United 29 States Department of Justice, 30 Washington, DC. 312 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 3 is DENIED. 4 Petitioner Sonia Arguijo-Anariba, a native and citizen 5 of Honduras, seeks review of a BIA decision affirming an 6 Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of 7 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 8 (“CAT”). In re Sonia Arguijo-Anariba, No. A206 625 565 9 (B.I.A. Dec. 20, 2016), aff’g No. A206 625 565 (Immig. Ct. 10 Hartford May 16, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity 11 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 12 The BIA declined to reach the IJ’s adverse credibility 13 determination, and we review only the determination made by 14 the BIA. See Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 15 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Therefore, we will assume, as the BIA 16 did, petitioner’s credibility. Applying well-established 17 standards of review, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), Yanqin 18 Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009), we identify 19 no error in the agency’s determination that Arguijo-Anariba 20 failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear 21 of future persecution on account of a protected ground. 223 Arguijo-Anariba had to demonstrate that she experienced 1 past persecution or feared future persecution on account of 2 her “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 3 social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. 4 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); id. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Asylum or 5 withholding of removal “may be granted where there is more 6 than one motive for mistreatment, as long as at least one 7 central reason for the mistreatment is on account of a 8 protected ground.” Acharya v. Holder , 761 F.3d 289, 297 (2d 9 Cir. 2014) (internal quot ation marks omitted). Harm 10 motivated purely by wealth is not based on a protected ground. 11 See Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey , 509 F.3d 70, 73–74 (2d Cir. 2007). 12 An applicant asserting persecution based on a protected 13 ground “must provide some evidence of [a persecutor’s 14 motives], direct or circumstantial.” I.N.S. v. Elias15 Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (emphasis in original); 16 see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 494 F.3d 281, 17 291 (2d Cir. 2007). 18 Arguijo-Anariba sought asylum and withholding of removal 19 based on her membership in two asserted social groups: 20 landowners and female heads of households. Even assuming 21 that these groups are cognizable under 8 U.S.C. 22 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), the agency reasonably determined that 234 Arguijo-Anariba failed to demonstrate that her membership in 1 those groups motivated the alleged harms. Specifically, she 2 offered no direct or circumstantial evidence to demonstrate 3 that she was, or will be, targeted based on her status as a 4 landowner or as a head of household. See I.N.S. v. Elias5 Zacarias , 502 U.S. at 483; see also Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey , 6 509 F.3d at 73 (“When the harm visited upon members of a group 7 is attributable to the incentives presented to ordinary 8 criminals rather than to persecution, the scales are tipped 9 away from considering those people a ‘particular social 10 group’”). 11 Because Arguijo-Anariba failed to demonstrate past 12 persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on 13 account of a protected ground, the agency did not err in 14 denying her asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. 15 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); id . § 1231(b)(3)(A). Arguijo-Anariba 16 does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief. 17 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 18 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 19 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 20 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 21 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 22 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 235 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 1 34.1(b). 2

FOR THE COURT: 3 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 4 Clerk of Court 5