Court Opinion

ID: 9389051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-24 15:01:02.830269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:23.981762
License: Public Domain

20-3828
     Cruz Ventura v. Garland
                                                                      BIA
                                                                Lurye, IJ
                                                             A206 013 523
                       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 for
 2   the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
 3   Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the
 4   24th day of April, two thousand twenty-three.
 5
 6   PRESENT:
 7             DENNIS JACOBS,
 8             GUIDO CALABRESI,
 9             EUNICE C. LEE,
10                  Circuit Judges.
11   _____________________________________
12
13   RUDY ORLANDO CRUZ VENTURA,
14             Petitioner,
15
16              v.                                        20-3828
17                                                        NAC
18   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES
19   ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20             Respondent.
21   _____________________________________
22
23
24   FOR PETITIONER:                Michael Borja, Borja Law Firm, P.C.,
25                                  Jackson Heights, NY.
26
27   FOR RESPONDENT:                Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant
28                                  Attorney General; Walter Bocchini,
29                                  Susan    Bennett     Green,     Senior
30                                  Litigation    Counsel,    Office    of
31                                  Immigration Litigation, United States
32                                  Department of Justice, Washington,
33                                  DC.
1

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

3    of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED,

4    ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

5         Rudy Orlando Cruz Ventura, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

6    seeks review of an October 9, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming

7    a December 12, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying

8    his application for withholding of removal. 1    In re Rudy Orlando

9    Cruz Ventura, No. A 206 013 523 (B.I.A. Oct. 9, 2020), aff’g No.

10   A 206 013 523 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 12, 2017).      We assume

11   the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural

12   history.

13        “When the BIA briefly affirms the decision of an IJ and adopts

14   the IJ’s reasoning in doing so, we review the IJ’s and the BIA’s

15   decisions together.”   Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Immigr.

16   & Customs Enf’t, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal

17   quotation marks removed and alterations adopted).         We review

18   findings of fact for substantial evidence.      See Edimo-Doualla v.

19   Gonzales, 464 F.3d 276, 282 (2d Cir. 2006).   Under the substantial

20   evidence standard, “a finding will stand if it is supported by

21   reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the record when

     1 Cruz Ventura did not seek asylum, and he does not challenge the
     denial of his claim under the Convention Against Torture.
                                     2
1    considered as a whole.”   Secaida-Rosales v. I.N.S., 331 F.3d 297,

2    307 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).

3         Here, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion

4    that Cruz Ventura failed to establish that gang members persecuted

5    him because of his religion.      Cruz Ventura had the burden to

6    establish before the IJ that his religion was “at least one central

7    reason” for the gang members’ actions.   Quituizaca v. Garland, 52

8    F.4th 103, 110 (2d Cir. 2022).    Although there may be “more than

9    one motive for mistreatment,” Acharya v. Holder, 761 F.3d 289, 297

10   (2d Cir. 2014), “the protected ground cannot play a minor role in

11   the alien’s past mistreatment or fears of future mistreatment.

12   That is, it cannot be incidental, tangential, superficial, or

13   subordinate to another reason for harm,” In re J-B-N-& S-M-, 24 I.

14   & N. Dec. 208, 214 (B.I.A. 2007).

15        Cruz Ventura testified that on three occasions on his way

16   home from work in 1998, gang members robbed him, tried to recruit

17   him, and assaulted him.    He believed they targeted him because,

18   as an Evangelical Christian, he would not retaliate.   However, he

19   also conceded that gang members would attack anyone they believed

20   would not retaliate regardless of religion, and he presented no

21   evidence that the gang members who attacked him were motivated by

22   his religion.   See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992)

23   (requiring “some evidence of [the persecutor’s motive], direct or

                                      3
1    circumstantial”); Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157–58

2    (2d Cir. 2008) (“[W]hen a petitioner bears the burden of proof,

3    his   failure   to   adduce   evidence   can   itself    constitute   the

4    substantial evidence necessary to support the agency’s challenged

5    decision.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).           At most, Cruz

6    Ventura speculated that gang members believed he was an Evangelical

7    Christian based on his clothing.       See Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421

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

9    the record . . . [a] fear is speculative at best.”).           Moreover,

10   Cruz Ventura admitted that the gang members robbed him, attempted

11   to recruit him, and would target non-religious people if they

12   believed that they, too, would not retaliate.           Thus, the record

13   demonstrates that Cruz Ventura’s religion was, at most, incidental

14   to the gang members’ underlying motives: money and recruitment.

15   See Garcia-Aranda v. Garland, 53 F.4th 752, 758 (2d Cir. 2022)

16   (finding that family membership was not a central reason for

17   persecution despite gang members perceiving applicant as wealthy

18   based in part on her inheritance from her family).

19

20

                                        4
1       For    the   foregoing   reasons,   the   petition   for   review   is

2   DENIED.    All pending motions and applications are DENIED and stays

3   VACATED.

4                                    FOR THE COURT:
5                                    Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
6                                    Clerk of Court

                                       5