Court Opinion

ID: 9378987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 14:00:30.131639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:28.992356
License: Public Domain

20-1828
     Bustamante-Romero v. Garland
                                                                                   BIA
                                                                            Connelly, IJ
                                                                           A206 653 426

                           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 the Second
 2   Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
 3   Square, in the City of New York, on the 14th day of March, two thousand
 4   twenty-three.
 5
 6   PRESENT:
 7              GERARD E. LYNCH,
 8              MICHAEL H. PARK,
 9              WILLIAM J. NARDINI,
10                    Circuit Judges.
11   _____________________________________
12
13   DOLORES BUSTAMANTE-ROMERO,
14           Petitioner,
15
16                    v.                                         20-1828
17                                                               NAC
18   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
19   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20              Respondent.
21   _____________________________________
 1   FOR PETITIONER:                     Jose Perez, Esq., Syracuse, NY.
 2
 3   FOR RESPONDENT:                     Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney
 4                                       General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant
 5                                       Director; Dana M. Camilleri, Trial Attorney,
 6                                       Office of Immigration Litigation, United States
 7                                       Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
 8
 9         UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of

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

11   DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

12         Petitioner Dolores Bustamante-Romero, a native and citizen of Mexico,

13   seeks review of a May 13, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming a May 8, 2018,

14   decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal,

15   and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).              In re Dolores

16   Bustamante-Romero, No. A206 653 426 (B.I.A. May 13, 2020), aff’g No. A206 653 426

17   (Immig. Ct. Batavia May 8, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

18   underlying facts and procedural history.

19         We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the

20   BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan

21   Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We address only the denial of

22   withholding of removal and CAT relief because Bustamante-Romero did not

                                              2
 1   exhaust a challenge to the IJ’s denial of her asylum claim as time barred. See Lin

2    Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 480 F.3d 104, 123 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that

 3   “usually . . . issues not raised to the BIA will not be examined by the reviewing

4    court”). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C.

5    § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any

6    reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”); Yanqin

7    Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009) (factual findings reviewed for

8    substantial evidence and legal questions reviewed de novo).

9          Withholding of Removal

10         To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, an applicant “must

11   establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group,

12   or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the

13   applicant.”   8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see also id. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Quituizaca v.

14   Garland, 52 F.4th 103, 105–06 (2d Cir. 2022). The agency did not err in finding that

15   Bustamante-Romero failed to establish her eligibility for withholding of removal

16   because (1) she did not establish her membership in her proposed social group of

17   “Mexican women who cannot leave abusive relationships” given that she

18   permanently left her abusive partner in 2002, lived unharmed in Mexico for almost

                                               3
 1   two years after that, and with one minor exception had not heard from him since

 2   2003; and (2) she did not establish her membership in her proposed group of

 3   family members of “people who have refused gang affiliation and have been killed

 4   because of that refusal” based on her son’s murder given her testimony that she

 5   did not know who killed her son or why. Certified Admin. R. at 3, 50; see also

 6   8 U.S.C. §§ 1231(b)(3)(A), 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Rocha v. Sessions, 720 F. App’x 643,

 7   645 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) (upholding agency’s determination that

 8   petitioner was not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal because she

 9   “failed to establish membership in her proposed social group of women in

10   relationships that they are unable to leave” given that she left the relationship).

11   Because Bustamante-Romero failed to establish her membership in her proposed

12   social groups, she failed to satisfy her burden for withholding of removal. See

13   8 U.S.C. §§ 1231(b)(3)(A), 1252(b)(4)(B).

14         CAT Relief

15         Unlike withholding of removal, CAT protection does not require a nexus to

16   a protected ground. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17(a). CAT applicants have

17   the burden to show they would “more likely than not” be tortured by or with the

18   acquiescence of government officials. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1), (7);

                                                 4
 1   see also Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 168, 170–71 (2d Cir. 2004).

 2         Under the circumstances of this case, the findings underlying the agency’s

 3   denial of withholding of removal support a conclusion that Bustamante-Romero

 4   failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that she would “more likely than not”

 5   be tortured. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Preliminarily, we note that Bustamante-

 6   Romero challenges the IJ’s conclusion that the evidence did not support finding

 7   that Mexican officials acquiesce to torture by domestic abusers and gang members.

 8   We need not reach that argument because, even if we agreed, remand would be

 9   futile. See Gurung v. Barr, 929 F.3d 56, 62 (2d Cir. 2019) (explaining that agency

10   remand is futile when “when overwhelming evidence in the record makes it clear

11   that the same decision is inevitable on remand, or, in short, whenever the

12   reviewing panel is confident that the agency would reach the same result upon a

13   reconsideration cleansed of errors”).         Bustamante-Romero alleged a fear of

14   torture by her former partner and the people who killed her son, but she left her

15   former partner almost two years before she left Mexico and he did not physically

16   harm her during that time, nor has he demonstrated any continuing interest in her.

17   She also did not know who killed her son or why, and she had not received any

18   threats. On this record, we find no basis for remand. See Jian Xing Huang v. U.S.

                                               5
1   INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (“In the absence of solid support in the

2   record . . . [an applicant’s] fear is speculative at best”).

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

4   motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

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

                                                6