19

- 1550 Esperanza

- Hernandez v. Garland BIA Christensen , IJ A 206 883 420 

### 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. 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**  **2 t**  **h da**  **y of M**  **a y**  **, two thousand**  **twenty**
**- one** 
**.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **DENNIS JACOBS,** 7 **ROBERT A. KATZMANN,** 8 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**____________________________ __**  **_________ __**  11 12 **MARIA ESPERANZA**

**- HERNANDEZ**  **,** 13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15
**v. 19** 

**- 1550**  16 **NAC** 17 **MERRICK B. GARLAND ,**  **UNITED** 18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **,** 19 **Respondent**

**.** 20

**________________________ __**  **_____________ __**  21 22 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Bruno Joseph Bembi, Esq., 23 Hempstead, NY. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Joseph H. Hunt , Assistant 26 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith , 27 Senior Litigation Counsel ; Nehal 28 H. Kamani , Trial Attorney, Office 292 of Immigration Litigation , United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, D C

. 3 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 review 7

is DENIED. 8

Pe titioner Maria Esperanza

- Hernandez , a native and 9

citizen of El Salvador , seek s review of a May 15, 2019 , 10
decision of the BIA affirming a January 31, 2018, decision of 11
an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 12

removal , and relief under the Convention Against Torture 13

(“CAT”). In re Maria Esperanza

- Hernandez , No. A 206 883 420 14

(B.I.A. May 15, 2019 ), aff’g No. A 206 883 420 (Immig. Ct. 15
N.Y. City Jan. 31, 2018 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity 16
with the underlying facts a nd procedural history. 17

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

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

. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 20
F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005) . The applicable standards of 21

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

Paloka v. Holder , 762 F.3d 191, 195

- 96 (2d Cir. 2014). 23

243 To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of 1
removal, an applicant must show that she suffered pa st 2
persecution, or has a well

- founded fear or likelihood of 3
future persecution, on account of race, religion, 4
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 5
political opinion. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(A), 6
(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A). We find no error in the agency’s 7

determination that Esperanza

- Hernandez failed to establish 8
past persecution or a well

- founded fear of future persecution 9
on account her membership in a particular social g roup. 10

8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b) (1)

- (2) (petitioner must show a nexus to 11
a protected ground to establish past persecution or well

12
founded fear of future persecution). 13
Even assuming arguendo that the P etitioner testified 14
credibly and that her proposed social group is cognizable, 15

Esperanza

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

concluded that she failed to establish that the threat s she 17

received and harm she fear ed w ere or would be on account of 18

her membership in her proposed social group of “[w]omen who 19
do not have security in [El Salvador] and are targeted by the 20
[gangs] , ” Certified Administrative Record (“CAR”) 104

. The 21

IJ found that the Petitioner “has not shown that [she was 224 persecuted] for any reason other than [a gang’s] ongoing 1

criminal efforts.” CAR 39. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, 2
holding that “there is no clear error in the [IJ’s] findings 3
of fact regarding motive.” CAR 3. On appeal, Esperanza

4

Hernandez does not point to any evidence in the record tha t 5
would compel a contrary conclusion. See 8 U.S.C. 6

§ 1252(b)(4)(B)

. 7

Because Esperanza

- Hernandez failed to establish a nexus 8

to a protected ground, the agency did not err in denying 9
asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. 10

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

Esperanza

- Hernandez abandon ed her CAT claim by not raising it 12

in her brief. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 13
541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). 14
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 15

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 16

stays VACATED. 17

FOR THE COURT: 18 Catherine O ’Hagan Wolfe , 19 Clerk of Court 20