19-1643

Carcamo-Ay ala v. Garland BIA Vomacka, IJ A206 359 498/499/500 

### UN I T E D S TAT E S C O URT O F A P P EAL S F O R T H E S E C OND C I RC U I T 

# S U M M A R Y OR DER

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 GOVERNE D B Y FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLAT E PRO C E D URE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUME N T 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 13 th

day of October, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11

_________________________________________ 12 13 MARTHA YANIRA CARCAMO-AYALA, YANIRA 14 ALEXANDRA CRUZ-CARCAMO, JHOAN STIVEN 15 CRUZ-CARCAMO, 16 Petitioners , 17 18 v. 19-1643 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent . 23

_________________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONERS: H. Raymond Fasano, Esq., Youman, 26 Madeo & Fasano, LLP, New York, 27 NY. 28 29 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 30 General; Jessica E. Burns, Senior 31 Litigation Counsel; John B. Holt,1 Trial Attorney, Office of

2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 6 UPON D U E C ONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, i t is hereby 8 ORDERED , ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioners Martha Yanira Carcam o -Ayala, Yanira 11 Alexandra Cruz-Carcamo, and Jhoan Stiven Cruz-Carcamo, 12 natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a May 13 10, 2019, decision of the BIA affirming a December 20, 2017, 14 decision of a n Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum and 15 withholding of r emoval. In re Martha Yanira Carcamo-Ayala, 16 et al. , Nos. A206 359 498/ 4 9 9 / 5 0 0 (B.I.A. May 10, 2019), 17 aff’g Nos. A206 359 498/499/500 ( I mm i g . Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 18 20, 20 1 7). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 19 underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have revie w e d the IJ’s decision as modified by the 21 BIA, i. e ., minus the adverse credibility determination that 22 the BIA declined to rea c h . Se e Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t 23 of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 24 applicable standards of revie w a r e well established. See 25 8 U.S. C . § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder , 762 F.3d 191, 21 195 (2d Cir. 2014).

2 An applicant for asylum and withholding of rem o val must 3 establish a nexus between t h e harm she suffered and fears 4 and her “race, religion, nationality, membership in a 5 particular social group, or political o p i n i on.” 8 U.S.C. 6 §§ 1158(b)(1)(B) ( i), 1231(b)(3)(A). The agency did not err 7 in finding that Carcamo-Ayala fail ed to demonstrate a nexus 8 between the harm she suffered and fears from gangs and her 9 membe r s h ip in the particular social group of her husband’s 10 family. 11 Her testimony did not compel the ag e ncy to conclude 12 that gang members targeted her based on her fami li al ties 13 rather than for financial reasons, an d “harm motivated 14 purely by wealth is not persecution.” Ucelo-Gom e z v . 15 Mukasey , 509 F.3d 70, 73–74 (2d Cir. 2007) (“When the harm 16 v isited upon members of a group is attributable t o t h e 17 incentives presented to ordinary criminals rath er t han to 18 persecution, the scales are tipped away from co n sidering 19 t h o s e people a ‘particular social group.’”); see 8 U.S.C. 20 § § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A); see also Yueqing Zhang 21 v. Go n z a l e s , 426 F.3d 540, 545 (2d Cir. 2005) (requiring 22 applicant to show nexus “through direct or cir c u m s tantial 23 evide n c e ” of the persecutor’s motive). We find that, 31 contrary to Carcamo-Ayala’s c o ntention, the BIA adequately

2 explained its decision. And we do not reach her political 3 opinion claim or allega t i o n s o f IJ bias because she failed 4 to e x h a u st those issues before the BIA. See Lin Zhong v. 5 U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 480 F.3d 104, 122 (2d Cir. 200 7). 6 Because Carcamo-Ayala failed to e s tablish a nexus 7 between the h ar m s he fears and a protected ground, the 8 agency did not e r r in denying asylum and withholding of 9 removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(A), 10 (B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A). We lack j u risdiction to review the 11 IJ’s denial of Carcamo-Ayala’s CAT claim because she did not 12 adequately challenge that decision on appeal to the BIA. 13 See Karaj v. Gonzales , 462 F.3d 113, 119 (2d Cir. 200 6). 14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for rev i e w i s 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

4