Court Opinion

ID: 9389798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 15:01:00.374798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:29.581749
License: Public Domain

20-4044
     Alfaro Perez v. Garland
                                                                                BIA
                                                                           Nelson, IJ
                                                                        A209 440 119
                               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 Thurgood Marshall
 3   United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
 4   New York, on the 26th day of April, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
 9                 Chief Judge,
10            STEVEN J. MENASHI,
11            EUNICE C. LEE,
12                 Circuit Judges.
13   _____________________________________
14
15   SANTOS E. ALFARO PEREZ,
16            Petitioner,
17
18                      v.                                    20-4044
19                                                            NAC
20   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
21   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22            Respondent.
23   _____________________________________
24
25
26   FOR PETITIONER:                      Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead,
27                                        NY.
28
 1   FOR RESPONDENT:               Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant
 2                                 Attorney General; Jonathan
 3                                 Robbins, Senior Litigation
 4                                 Counsel; Andrew B. Insenga, Trial
 5                                 Attorney, Office of Immigration
 6                                 Litigation, United States
 7                                 Department of Justice, Washington,
 8                                 DC.

 9       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

12   is DENIED.

13       Petitioner Santos E. Alfaro Perez, a native and citizen

14   of El Salvador, seeks review of a November 10, 2020 decision

15   of the BIA affirming an August 28, 2018 decision of an

16   Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum,

17   withholding   of   removal,   and       relief   under   the   Convention

18   Against Torture (“CAT”).      In re Santos E. Alfaro Perez, No.

19   A 209 440 119 (B.I.A. Nov. 10, 2020), aff’g No. A 209 440 119

20   (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 28, 2018).           We assume the parties’

21   familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

22       We review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA,

23   considering only whether Alfaro Perez established that the

24   Salvadoran government is unable or unwilling to protect her

25   or would acquiesce to her torture.          See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S.

                                         2
 1   Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005).                       We review

 2   factfinding for substantial evidence and questions of law and

 3   the application of law de novo.                  Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d

 4   316, 326 (2d Cir. 2020).            “[T]he administrative findings of

 5   fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would

 6   be    compelled     to    conclude    to     the     contrary.”           8 U.S.C.

 7   § 1252(b)(4)(B).

 8          For asylum and withholding of removal, Alfaro Perez had

 9   the burden to show past persecution or a well-founded fear or

10   likelihood     of        future     persecution.             See      8     C.F.R.

11   §§ 1208.13(a)–(b),         1208.16(b)(1)–(2).         1      “To     qualify    as

12   persecution the conduct at issue must be attributable to the

13   government, whether directly because engaged in by government

14   officials,    or    indirectly       because       engaged      in   by    private

15   persons    whom    the    government        is    unable   or      unwilling    to

16   control.”    Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106, 114 (2d Cir. 2021)

17   (internal quotation marks omitted).                  “Under the unwilling-

18   or-unable    standard,      a     finding    of     persecution       ordinarily

19   requires a determination that government authorities, if they

     1   Citations are to the version of the regulations in effect
     at the time of the agency’s decisions.

                                            3
 1   did   not   actually   perpetrate       or    incite   the   persecution,

 2   condoned it or at least demonstrated a complete helplessness

 3   to protect the victims.” Id. at 114–15 (internal quotation

 4   marks omitted).     Similarly, for CAT relief, Alfaro Perez had

 5   the burden to show that she would “more likely than not” be

 6   tortured “at the instigation of, or with the consent or

 7   acquiescence of, a public official . . . or other person

 8   acting in an official capacity.”             8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2),

 9   1208.18(a)(1).     “Acquiescence of a public official requires

10   that the public official, prior to the activity constituting

11   torture,    have   awareness   of   such      activity   and     thereafter

12   breach his or her legal responsibility to intervene to prevent

13   such activity.”     Id. § 1208.18(a)(7).

14         Alfaro   Perez    testified        that     during     a     six-year

15   relationship, her former domestic partner beat her when he

16   drank, raped her, resulting in her first pregnancy, and

17   threatened to kill her.        She left him when he threw a knife

18   at her, and he was arrested and detained for three days after

19   her mother called the police.           When he continued to seek her

20   out and threaten her, she obtained a two-year order of

21   protection from a Salvadoran court.            Her former partner found

                                         4
 1   her after that order expired. She believes he killed her new

 2   partner, but she never reported that suspicion or further

 3   threats to the authorities.        He stopped trying to see her

 4   after she moved a half hour away, but she believes he called

 5   her and threatened to kill her.

 6       The fact that her former partner was arrested, detained,

 7   and later subject to a two-year restraining order undermines

 8   Alfaro   Perez’s   claim   that   the   Salvadoran   government   is

 9   “unwilling or unable” to protect her.         Given this evidence

10   that the authorities reacted each time she complained, that

11   her former partner did not violate the order of protection

12   while it was in place, and that she did not report his later

13   actions to the authorities, she has not demonstrated that the

14   government would refuse to or be unable to help her or that

15   government officials would more likely than not acquiesce to

16   her torture.   See Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125,

17   129 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Absent solid support in the record . .

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

19

20

                                       5
1       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

2   DENIED.   All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

3   stays VACATED.

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

                                  6