19

- 2798 Gonzalez

- Carias v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A 206 711 528/529 

### 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 FED**  **ERAL 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 1**  **7 t**  **h da**  **y of M**  **a y**  **, two thousand**  **twenty**
**- one** 
**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **REENA RAGGI ,**  7 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR. ,**  8 **STEVEN J. MENASHI ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **CLAUDIA LICETH GONZALEZ**

**- CARIAS**  **,** 13 **JOXAN ADALI GONZALES**

**- CARIAS**  14 **Petitioner s**  **,** 15 16
**v. 19** 

**- 2798**  17 **NAC** 18 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 19 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 20 **Respondent**

**.** 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 **FOR PETITIONER S**  **:** Glenn L

. Formica, FORMICA , P.C., 24 New Haven , CT 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joseph H. Hunt , Assistant Attorney 27 General ; Leslie McKay , Margot L. 282 Carter , Senior Litigation Counsel , 1 Office of Immigration Litigation, 2 United States Department of 3 Justice, Washington, D C 4
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for r eview 7

is DENIED

. 8

Petitioner s Claudia Liceth Gonzalez

- Carias (“Claudia”) 9

and Joxan Adali Gonzales

- Carias (“Joxan”) , native s and 10

citizen s of Honduras , seek review of a n August 7 , 2019 11

decision of the BIA affirming a January 2, 2018 decision of 12

an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 13
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 14

(“CAT”)

. In re Claudia Liceth Gonzalez

- Cari a s, Joxan Adali 15

Gonzales

- Carias , No. A 206 711 528/529 (B.I.A. Aug. 7, 2019 ), 16
aff’g No. A 206 711 528/529 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Jan. 2, 2018 ). 17
We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 18
and procedural history. 19

We review both the BIA ’s and IJ’s decisions for the “sake 20
of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. , 44 8 21
F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of 22

review are well established. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 233 F.3d 510, 513, 516 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing factual findings 1
for substantial evidence and questions of law and application 2

of law to facts de novo ); Edimo

- Doualla v. Gonzales , 464 F.3d 3
276, 282

– 83 (2d Cir. 2006) (applying substantial evidence 4
standard to nexus determination). “[T]he administrative 5
findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable 6
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 7

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 8

Joxan alleged that he was persecuted and feared 9
persecution and torture by gangs on accoun t of his membership 10
in a particular social group of youth targeted for gang 11
recruitment. Claudia alleged that the gangs targeted her on 12
account of her membership in a particular social group of 13
Joxan’s family. We address only Claudia’s family

- based claim 14

because Joxan conceded on appeal to the BIA that he had not 15
stated a particular social group. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. 16
Dep’t of Justice , 480 F.3d 104, 1 22 (2d Cir. 2007) ( generally 17
requiring exhaustion of issues before the BIA )

. 18
To obtain asylum or withholding of removal, an applicant 19
must establish past persecution or a fear of future 20
persecution on account of a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. 214 §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b), 1
1208.16(b)(1), (2). The pr otected ground must be “at least 2
one central reason” for the claimed persecution , and the 3
applicant must provide direct or circumstantial evidence of 4
the persecutor’s motives. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) 5
(asylum); see also id. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (withholding ); Matter 6

of C

- T

- L

- , 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 346

– 48 (B

. I

. A

. 2010) (holding 7
that the “one central reason” standard also applies to 8
withholding of removal); INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 9
483 (1992) (requiring “ some evidence” of motive, “direct or 10

circums tantial”). When a social group is based on family 11
ties and “animus against the family per se is not implicated, 12
the question becomes what motive or motives cause the 13
persecutor to seek to harm members of an individual’s family.” 14

Matter of L

- E

- A

- , 27 I. & N. Dec. 40, 45 (B.I.A. 2017), 15
overruled in part on other grounds in Matter of L

- E

- A

- , 27 I. 16
& N. Dec. 581, 596

– 97 (A.G. 2019). A “ n exus [between the 17
alleged harm and a protected ground] is not established simply 18
because a particular social group of famil y members exists 19
and the family members experience harm.” Id. “The protected 20
trait, in this case membership in the . . . family, cannot 215 play a minor role

— that is, it cannot be incidental [or] 1
tangential

. . . to another reason for harm

. ” Id. at 4 4 2

( internal quotation marks omitted). R ather , there must be 3
some indication “that the persecutors had . . . animus against 4
the family or the [applicant] based on their biological ties, 5
historical status, or other features unique to that family 6

unit.” Id. at 47

. 7

But s ubstantial evidence supports the agency’s finding 8
that Claudia failed to demonstrate the requisite nexus to her 9
particular social group of her family. The gang members 10
threatened to kill Claudia and her family if Joxan did not 11

work for them. N either Claudia nor Joxan testified that the 12
gang had any motivation other than increasing its ranks. 13

Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. at 483 (requiring “ some evidence” of 14
motive “direct or circumstantial”). Harm resulting from 15
general criminal violence is not harm on account of a 16
protected ground. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno , 191 F.3d 17
307, 313

– 14 (2d Cir. 1999) (“general crime conditions” and 18

“random violen ce” cannot support a claim to asylum); Ucelo

19
Gomez v. Mukasey , 509 F.3d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 2007) (rejecting 20
claim based on perceived wealth and political opinion where 216 putative persecutors had no “motive other than increasing 1
their own wealth at the expense o f the petitioners.” ( internal 2
quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, because Claudia 3

failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm she suffered 4

and fears and her membership in her family, the agency did 5
not err in finding that she failed to establish he r 6
eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See 7

8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A). 8
Claudia and Joxan have abandoned their CAT claim by 9
failing to argue it in their brief. See Yueqing Zhang v. 10

Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) . Our review 11

of the record does not reveal a basis to remand the CAT claim. 12
Claudia and Joxan alleged a continuing fear based on the 13
murder of Joxan’s cousin and threats against Claudia’s 14
daughters. But their testimony and evidence did not show who 15
killed Joxan’s cousin or why, and they provided no 16
corroboration about the threats despite presenting supporting 17
letters from the family members caring for Claudia’s 18
daughters. A pplicant s cannot meet their burden if they do 19
not provide reasonably available corroborat ion

. See 8 U.S.C. 20

§ 1158(b)(1)( B)(ii); see also Jian Hu Shao v. Mukasey , 546 217 F.3d 138, 157

– 58 (2d Cir. 2008) (“ [W] hen a petitioner bears 1
the burden of proof,

. . . failure to adduce evidence can 2

itself constitut e the ‘ substantial evidence ’ necessary to 3
support the agency's challenged decision.”); Jian Xing Huang 4

v. U.S. INS , 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (“In the absence 5
of solid support in the record . . . [ the applicant’s] fear 6
is speculative at best.”). 7
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 8

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 9

stays VACATED

. 10

FOR THE COURT: 11 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 12 Clerk of Court 13