10-2187-ag

Buitrago-Valencia v. Holder

BIA

Montante, Jr., IJ

A095 968 092

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 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan

3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 14th 4 day of September, two thousand eleven.

5

6 PRESENT:

7 RALPH K. WINTER,

8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

9 ROBERT D. SACK,

10 Circuit Judges.

11 ______________________________________

12

13 LUIS A. BUITRAGO-VALENCIA,

14 Petitioner, 

15

16 10-2187-ag

17 v. NAC

18

19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

21 Respondent.

22 ______________________________________

23

24 FOR PETITIONER: Nancy M. Vizer, Chicago, Illinois.

25

26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

27 General; John S. Hogan, Senior

28 Litigation Counsel; Aimee J.

29 Frederickson, Trial Attorney, Office

30 of Immigration Litigation, Civil

31 Division, United States Department 

32 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
1Yalila Buitrago Silva, Buitrago-Valencia’s daughter, is

not a petitioner before this Court because the BIA remanded

her proceedings to the IJ for consideration of her application

for adjustment of status.

2

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

4 is DENIED.

5 Petitioner Luis A. Buitrago-Valencia, a native and

6 citizen of Colombia, seeks review of a May 6, 2010, order of

7 the BIA affirming the June 10, 2009, decision of immigration

8 judge (“IJ”) Philip J. Montante, Jr., denying his

9 application for withholding of removal and relief under the

10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Luis A. Buitrago

11 Valencia, Yalila Buitrago Silva, Nos. A095 968 092, A095 968

12 093 (B.I.A. May 6, 2010), aff’g No. A095 968 092 (Immig. Ct.

Buffalo, NY June 10, 2009).1 13 We assume the parties’

14 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history

15 of the case.

16 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed

17 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang

18 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 

19 The applicable standards of review are well-established. 

20 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v.

21 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 
3

1 As a preliminary matter, Buitrago-Valencia’s challenges

2 to the IJ’s adverse credibility determination are not

3 properly before the Court, as the BIA specifically declined

4 to address Buitrago-Valencia’s credibility, determining

5 instead that, even if deemed credible, he failed to

6 establish his eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT

7 relief. See Xue Hong Yang, 426 F.3d at 522.

8 With respect to Buitrago-Valencia’s application for

9 withholding of removal, the BIA did not err in finding that

10 he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that

11 any mistreatment he suffered, or may suffer in the future,

12 would be on account of any protected ground. 8 C.F.R.

13 § 1208.16(b)(1) During his initial proceedings before the

14 IJ, Buitrago-Valencia testified that he had been the target

15 of extortion attempts by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of

16 Colombia (“FARC”) since 1998, and that “many of the people

17 who have properties” were similarly threatened, stating that

18 “[y]ou have to pay money until you die in Colombia.” On

19 remand, Buitrago-Valencia further testified that “landowners

20 always receive threats,” and that “[a]ll of the property

21 owners . . . had to pay the guerilla forces.” Thus, the

22 record indicates that Buitrago-Valencia was threatened based

23 on his perceived status as a wealthy landowner, rather than
4

1 his political opinion or social group membership. See

2 Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70, 73-74 (2d Cir. 2007)

3 (finding no error in the BIA’s conclusion that “wealth or

4 affluence is simply too subjective, inchoate, and variable

5 to provide the sole basis for membership in a particular

6 social group.”). Furthermore, although Buitrago-Valencia

7 testified to several instances of harassment of his family

8 members, including an incident where his wife and daughter

9 were threatened by armed men on motorcycles, a kidnaping

10 attempt on another daughter, and his son’s shooting, he did

11 not indicate that they were in any way connected with his

12 political activities. Indeed, Buitrago-Valencia’s testimony

13 that his family received a letter from the FARC “asking for

14 twelve million five hundred pesos” as a “donation,” further

15 supports the agency’s determination that he and his family

16 were targeted specifically for their money.

17 With respect to Buitrago-Valencia’s application for CAT

18 relief, the BIA did not err in finding that the evidence in

19 the record was insufficient to establish that the Colombian

20 government would remain willfully blind to, or acquiesce in,

21 any acts of torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); see also

22 Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 171 (2d Cir. 2004). As

23 the BIA noted, “while the country information in the record
5

1 reveals that the FARC is still operative in Colombia, it

2 also reveals that the group no longer constitutes the same

3 threat in Colombia as it did in past years.” Moreover, the

4 U.S. Department of State’s 2007 Country Report on Terrorism

5 indicates that “[t]he Government of Colombia . . . [has]

6 continued vigorous law enforcement, intelligence, military,

7 and economic measures” against the FARC. Buitrago-Valencia

8 points to no evidence to the contrary.

9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

14 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

15 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

16 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

17 FOR THE COURT: 

18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

19