18

- 3818 Tapia

- Pedroza v. Wilkin son BIA Hochul, IJ A 208 617 541 

### 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 APP**  **ENDIX 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 a**  **t the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,**  3 **on the 2**  **9 t**  **h da**  **y of J**  **a n**  **u a**  **r y**  **, two thousand twenty**  **- one**  **.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES ,**  7 **ROBERT D. SACK ,**  8 **WILLIAM J. NARDINI ,**  9 **Circuit Judges.** 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **JOSE ANTONIO TAPIA -**  **PEDROZA ,**  13 **Petitioner ,**  14 15
**v. 18** 
**- 3818**  16 **NAC** 17 **M O**  **N T**  **Y W**  **I L**  **K I**  **N S**  **O N**  **, ACTING**  **UNITED** 18 **STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **,** 19 **Respondent .**  **1** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 23

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen as Respondent.2 **FOR PETITIONER :**  Jose Perez , Esq. , Law Offices of 1 Jose Perez, P.C

. , Syracuse, NY. 2 3

**FOR RESPONDENT:** Jeffrey Bossert Clark , Acting 4 Assistant Attorney General ; 5 Anthony C. Payne , Assistant 6 Director; Colette J. Winston , 7 Trial Attorney, Office of 8 Immigration Litigation, United 9 States Department of Justice, 10 Washington, D C. 11
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 12
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 13

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitio n for review 14

is DENIED

. 15

Petitioner Jose Antonio Tapia

- Pedroza , a native and 16

citizen of Mexico , seeks review of a November 29, 2018 , 17

decision of the BIA affirming a November 22, 2017 , decision 18
of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholdi ng of 19
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 20

(“CAT”)

. In re Jose Antonio Tapia

- Pedroza , No. A 208 617 541 21

(B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2018 ), aff’g No. A 208 617 541 (Immig. Ct. 22

Buffalo Nov. 22, 2017 ). We assume the parties’ familiarity 23
with the underlying facts and procedural history. 24

We have reviewed the decision of the IJ as supplemented 25
and modified by the BIA, i.e. minus the IJ’s analysis of 263 whether Tapia

- Pedroza’s proposed social group is cognizable. 1

See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 2
(2d Cir. 2005 ); Yan Chen v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 3
Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 4

established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder , 5
762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (reviewing factual findings 6
for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo); Gjolaj 7
v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs. , 468 F.3d 140, 8
143 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing nexus determination for 9
substantial evidence). 10

Where, as here, an asylum applicant does not allege past 11
persecution, he has the burden to establish a well

- founded 12
fear of future persecution and that “ra ce, religion, 13
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 14
political opinion . . . will be at least one cent ral reason 15
for persecuting the applicant

. ” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) ; 16

see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1), (2). To establish a well

17

founded fear, an applicant must show that he “ subjectively 18

fears ” persecution and that “ his fear is objectively 19

reasonable. ” Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 169, 178 20
(2d Cir. 2004). Although a “ fear may be well

- founded even 214 if there is only a slight, though discernible, chance of 1
persecution , ” Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279, 284 (2d Cir. 200 0), 2

a fear is not obje ctively reasonable if it lacks “solid 3
support” in the record and is merely “speculative at best , ” 4
Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS , 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005). 5
We find no error in the agency’s conclusions that Tapia

6

Pedroza did not establish his member ship in his proposed 7
social group or an objectively reasonable fear of 8
persecution. He argues that he is a member of a particular 9
social group of “individuals who have been held as material 10
witnesses against organized criminal syndicates operating 11

with ti es to other criminal syndicates throughout Mexico.” 12
But he did not tie the individual in the United States against 13

whom he was a witness to organized criminal groups in Mexico

. 14
The only evidence of a connection was the fact that the 15
individual pic ked him and two others up on the U.S. side of 16

the border after another individual brought them to the border 17

in Mexico . Tapia

- Pedroza had no prior knowledge of either 18
individual, they were not from his hometo w n , and neither he 19

nor his family members had received any threats

. Given the 20

lack of evidence of a connection to or ganized cri minal groups 215 or that anyone was interested in harming him, substa ntial 1
evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that he failed to 2

show a connection to a protected ground or an objectively 3

reasonable fear of future harm. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey , 4

546 F

. 3d 138, 157

– 58 (2d Cir

. 2008) (“ [W] hen a petitioner 5
bears the burden of proof, his failure to adduce evidence can 6

itself const itute the ‘ substantial evidence ’ necessary to 7
support the agency ’ s challenged decision.”). Tapia

8
Pedroza’s failure to establish an objectively reasonable fear 9
of persecution is dispositive of asylum, withholding of 10

removal, and CAT relief

. See Lecaj v. Holder , 616 F

. 3d 111, 11

119

– 20 (2d Cir

. 2010). 12
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 13

DENIED

. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and 14

stays VACATED. 15

FOR THE COURT: 16 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe , 17 Clerk of Court 18