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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 

3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 

New York, on the 27th 4 day of March, two thousand nineteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: 

7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,

8 ROBERT D. SACK, 

9 REENA RAGGI,

10 Circuit Judges. 

11 _____________________________________ 

12 

13 SONIA ARGUIJO-ANARIBA, 

14 Petitioner, 

15 

16 v. 17-149 

17 NAC 

18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 

19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

20 Respondent. 

21 _____________________________________ 

22 

23 FOR PETITIONER: Robert C. Ross, West Haven, CT. 

24 

25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 

26 Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, 

27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Deitz 

28 P. Lefort, Trial Attorney, Office 

29 of Immigration Litigation, United 

30 States Department of Justice, 

31 Washington, DC. 
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 

4 is DENIED. 

5 Petitioner Sonia Arguijo-Anariba, a native and citizen 

6 of Honduras, seeks review of a BIA decision affirming an 

7 Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of 

8 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

9 (“CAT”). In re Sonia Arguijo-Anariba, No. A206 625 565 

10 (B.I.A. Dec. 20, 2016), aff’g No. A206 625 565 (Immig. Ct. 

11 Hartford May 16, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity 

12 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 

13 The BIA declined to reach the IJ’s adverse credibility 

14 determination, and we review only the determination made by 

15 the BIA. See Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 

16 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Therefore, we will assume, as the BIA 

17 did, petitioner’s credibility. Applying well-established 

18 standards of review, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), Yanqin 

19 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009), we identify 

20 no error in the agency’s determination that Arguijo-Anariba 

21 failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear 

22 of future persecution on account of a protected ground. 
3 

1 Arguijo-Anariba had to demonstrate that she experienced 

2 past persecution or feared future persecution on account of 

3 her “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 

4 social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. 

5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); id. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Asylum or 

6 withholding of removal “may be granted where there is more 

7 than one motive for mistreatment, as long as at least one 

8 central reason for the mistreatment is on account of a 

9 protected ground.” Acharya v. Holder, 761 F.3d 289, 297 (2d 

10 Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Harm 

11 motivated purely by wealth is not based on a protected ground. 

12 See Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70, 73–74 (2d Cir. 2007). 

13 An applicant asserting persecution based on a protected 

14 ground “must provide some evidence of [a persecutor’s 

15 motives], direct or circumstantial.” I.N.S. v. Elias16 Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (emphasis in original); 

17 see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 

18 291 (2d Cir. 2007). 

19 Arguijo-Anariba sought asylum and withholding of removal 

20 based on her membership in two asserted social groups: 

21 landowners and female heads of households. Even assuming 

22 that these groups are cognizable under 8 U.S.C. 

23 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), the agency reasonably determined that 
4 

1 Arguijo-Anariba failed to demonstrate that her membership in 

2 those groups motivated the alleged harms. Specifically, she 

3 offered no direct or circumstantial evidence to demonstrate 

4 that she was, or will be, targeted based on her status as a 

5 landowner or as a head of household. See I.N.S. v. Elias6 Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483; see also Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 

7 509 F.3d at 73 (“When the harm visited upon members of a group 

8 is attributable to the incentives presented to ordinary 

9 criminals rather than to persecution, the scales are tipped 

10 away from considering those people a ‘particular social 

11 group’”). 

12 Because Arguijo-Anariba failed to demonstrate past 

13 persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on 

14 account of a protected ground, the agency did not err in 

15 denying her asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. 

16 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); id. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Arguijo-Anariba 

17 does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief. 

18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

19 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal 

20 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 

21 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 

22 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 

23 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 
5 

1 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 

2 34.1(b). 

3 FOR THE COURT: 

4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 

5 Clerk of Court