22-6251

Ruiz Garcia v. Garland

BIA

Christensen, IJ

A210 212 584

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. 

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 

Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 

Square, in the City of New York, on the 16th day of September, two thousand 

twenty-four. 

PRESENT: 

GERARD E. LYNCH,

MICHAEL H. PARK,

SARAH A. L. MERRIAM,

Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________ 

MARTIN RUIZ GARCIA, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 22-6251 

 NAC 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent. 

_____________________________________ 

FOR PETITIONER: Cory Forman, Cohen Forman Barone, LLP, 

New York, NY. 
2 

FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General; Jessica E. Burns, Leslie 

McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, United States 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 

DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 

Petitioner Martin Ruiz Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review 

of an April 29, 2022 decision of the BIA affirming a May 13, 2019 decision of an 

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Martin 

Ruiz Garcia, No. A210 212 584 (B.I.A. Apr. 29, 2022), aff’g No. A210 212 584 (Immigr. 

Ct. N.Y. City May 13, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

underlying facts and procedural history. 

Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. 

See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). “We 

review the agency’s factual findings . . . for substantial evidence” and “[w]e review 

the agency’s legal conclusions de novo.” Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135, 

141 (2d Cir. 2008). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 
3 

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 

The agency did not err in finding that Ruiz Garcia failed to establish his 

eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief based on his fear that 

members of his community in Mexico will harm him based on his childendangerment conviction in the United States and that cartels will kidnap him for 

ransom as a returnee who lived in the United States. 

Absent past persecution, an applicant may establish eligibility for asylum 

by demonstrating a well-founded fear of future persecution, see 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.13(b)(2), “which requires that the alien present credible testimony that he 

subjectively fears persecution and establish that his fear is objectively reasonable,” 

Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 (2d Cir. 2004). The agency did not err 

in finding speculative Ruiz Garcia’s fear that his community in Mexico would kill 

him on account of a New York conviction for child endangerment because the 

evidence did not establish that he is at risk of such harm. See Jian Xing Huang v. 

U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (“In the absence of solid support in the 

record . . . [an applicant’s] fear is speculative at best.”). Ruiz Garcia primarily 

testified that his conviction would politically hurt his brother, who is mayor of a 
4 

small town, and asserted only a generalized fear that his community would kill 

him when asked to specify what fear he had for himself. His evidence states that 

vigilante groups have emerged in certain areas of Mexico to protect against 

organized criminal groups suspected of criminal activity and kidnappings within 

communities, but it does not discuss vigilante violence directed at those, like Ruiz 

Garcia, who have been convicted of crimes outside of Mexico. 

The agency also did not err in finding that Ruiz Garcia failed to establish a 

well-founded fear that criminal cartels would kidnap him on account of his status 

as a returnee from the United States. See id.; Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 178. Ruiz 

Garcia’s evidence states that returnees face institutional discrimination and can be 

stigmatized as criminals, but the agency reasonably noted that the evidence does 

not indicate that returnees are kidnapped at a greater rate than the general 

population and that the general rate of “2.4 kidnapping cases per 100,000 

inhabitants,” Certified Administrative Record at 644, is insufficient to establish a 

reasonable possibility that Ruiz Garcia will face kidnapping. See Jian Hui Shao v. 

Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157 (2d Cir. 2008) (recognizing that a “reasonable possibility 

of persecution c[an] be sufficient to support a well-founded fear” and noting that 

the Supreme Court has “cited approvingly to a one-in-ten example of persecution 
5 

to illustrate the sort of reasonable possibility that would demonstrate a wellfounded fear” (quotation marks omitted)); Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 

314 n.3 (2d Cir. 1999) (“General violence in [a country] does not constitute 

persecution, nor can it form a basis for petitioner’s well-founded fear of 

persecution.”). 

Ruiz Garcia’s failure to establish a well-founded fear of persecution was 

dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Lecaj v. Holder, 

616 F.3d 111, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2010) (explaining that when an applicant “fails to 

demonstrate the . . . chance of persecution required for the grant of asylum, he 

necessarily fails to demonstrate the clear probability of future persecution 

required for withholding of removal, and the more likely than not to be tortured 

standard required for CAT relief”) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 

Therefore, we do not reach the agency’s alternative bases for denying relief. See 

INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies 

are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary 

to the results they reach.”). 
6 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending 

motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 

Clerk of Court