19-1550

Esperanza-Hernandez v. Garland

BIA

Christensen, IJ

A206 883 420

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 12th 4 day of May, two thousand twenty-one.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 DENNIS JACOBS,

8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,

9 GERARD E. LYNCH,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 _________________________________________

12

13 MARIA ESPERANZA-HERNANDEZ,

14 Petitioner,

15

16 v. 19-1550

17 NAC

18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED

19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

20 Respondent.

21 _________________________________________

22

23 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Esq., 

24 Hempstead, NY.

25

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 

27 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, 

28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Nehal 

29 H. Kamani, Trial Attorney, Office 
2

1 of Immigration Litigation, United 

2 States Department of Justice, 

3 Washington, DC.

4

5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

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

7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 

8 is DENIED.

9 Petitioner Maria Esperanza-Hernandez, a native and 

10 citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a May 15, 2019, 

11 decision of the BIA affirming a January 31, 2018, decision of 

12 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 

13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 

14 (“CAT”). In re Maria Esperanza-Hernandez, No. A206 883 420 

15 (B.I.A. May 15, 2019), aff’g No. A206 883 420 (Immig. Ct. 

16 N.Y. City Jan. 31, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 

17 with the underlying facts and procedural history.

18 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 

19 BIA, which affirmed the IJ’s decision without reaching all of 

20 the reasons given by the IJ. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 

21 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of 

22 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 

23 Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195-96 (2d Cir. 2014). 

24
3

1 To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of 

2 removal, an applicant must show that she suffered past 

3 persecution, or has a well-founded fear or likelihood of 

4 future persecution, on account of race, religion, 

5 nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 

6 political opinion. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(A), 

7 (B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A). We find no error in the agency’s 

8 determination that Esperanza-Hernandez failed to establish 

9 past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution 

10 on account her membership in a particular social group. 

11 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)-(2) (petitioner must show a nexus to 

12 a protected ground to establish past persecution or well13 founded fear of future persecution). 

14 Even assuming arguendo that the Petitioner testified 

15 credibly and that her proposed social group is cognizable, 

16 Esperanza-Hernandez’s claim fails, because the BIA reasonably 

17 concluded that she failed to establish that the threats she 

18 received and harm she feared were or would be on account of 

19 her membership in her proposed social group of “[w]omen who 

20 do not have security in [El Salvador] and are targeted by the 

21 [gangs],” Certified Administrative Record (“CAR”) 104. The 

22 IJ found that the Petitioner “has not shown that [she was 
4

1 persecuted] for any reason other than [a gang’s] ongoing 

2 criminal efforts.” CAR 39. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, 

3 holding that “there is no clear error in the [IJ’s] findings 

4 of fact regarding motive.” CAR 3. On appeal, Esperanza5 Hernandez does not point to any evidence in the record that

6 would compel a contrary conclusion. See 8 U.S.C. 

7 § 1252(b)(4)(B).

8 Because Esperanza-Hernandez failed to establish a nexus 

9 to a protected ground, the agency did not err in denying 

10 asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. 

11 §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(A), (B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A). 

12 Esperanza-Hernandez abandoned her CAT claim by not raising it 

13 in her brief. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 

14 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). 

15 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 

16 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 

17 stays VACATED.

18 FOR THE COURT: 

19 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

20 Clerk of Court