Court Opinion

ID: 9352709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-09 16:01:00.27371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:53.266565
License: Public Domain

20-3096
     Lema-KaJuana v. Garland
                                                                            BIA
                                                                       Wright, IJ
                                                                    A206 369 531
                           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 9th day of January, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
 9            MYRNA PÉREZ,
10            ALISON J. NATHAN,
11                 Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13
14   MARIA GLADIS LEMA-KAJUANA,
15            Petitioner,
16
17                    v.                                  20-3096
18                                                        NAC
19   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21            Respondent.
22   _____________________________________
23
24   FOR PETITIONER:                  Michael Borja, Esq., Jackson
25                                    Heights, NY.
26
27   FOR RESPONDENT:                  Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant
28                                    Attorney General; Janice K.
 1                                    Redfern, Senior Litigation
 2                                    Counsel; Gerald M. Alexander,
 3                                    Trial Attorney, Office of
 4                                    Immigration Litigation, United
 5                                    States Department of Justice,
 6                                    Washington, DC.

 7         UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

10   is DENIED.

11         Petitioner    Maria    Gladis       Lema-Kajuana,        a   native   and

12   citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of an August 14, 2020

13   decision of the BIA affirming an August 14, 2018 decision of

14   an    Immigration   Judge   (“IJ”)        denying       her   application   for

15   asylum,    withholding      of   removal,         and     relief   under    the

16   Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).               In re Maria Gladis Lema-

17   Kajuana, No. A 206 369 531 (B.I.A. Aug. 14, 2020), aff’g No.

18   A 206 369 531 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 14, 2018).                 We assume

19   the    parties’    familiarity    with      the     underlying      facts   and

20   procedural history.

21         We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions.

22   See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528

23   (2d Cir. 2006).      The applicable standards of review are well

24   established.      See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder,

                                           2
 1   762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (reviewing factual findings

2    for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo).                   In

3    lieu of filing a brief, the Government has moved for summary

4    denial of the petition for review.         Rather than determine if

5    the petition is frivolous as is required for summary denial,

6    see Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir. 1995), we construe

7    the Government’s motion as its brief and deny the petition on

8    the merits.

 9       To qualify for asylum or withholding of removal, an

10   applicant    must   show   persecution     because    of       a   protected

11   ground, and “the conduct at issue must be attributable to the

12   government, whether directly because engaged in by government

13   officials,    or    indirectly   because    engaged       in   by   private

14   persons   whom     the   government   is   unable    or    unwilling     to

15   control.”     Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 316, 328 (2d Cir. 2020)

16   (quotation marks omitted).       The agency concluded that Lema-

17   KaJuana established neither membership in a cognizable social

18   group nor that Ecuadorian authorities would be unable or

19   unwilling to protect her.         We decline to reach the first

20   ground because of the change in the law since the time of the

21   agency’s decision.       See Matter of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 307

                                       3
 1   (A.G. 2021).   However, we find no error in the agency’s second

 2   and dispositive ground.

 3       Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion

 4   that Ecuadorian authorities were not unable or unwilling to

 5   protect Lema-KaJuana from her former boyfriend.    See 8 U.S.C.

 6   § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (placing burden of proof on applicant).

 7   “[T]o   demonstrate   persecution   based   on   private   party

 8   violence, an alien must show either that the government

 9   condoned the action or, even if it did not, that it was

10   completely helpless to protect the victims.”      Scarlett, 957

11   F.3d at 332.   The record does not support such a finding.

12       To the contrary, Lema-KaJuana stated that the police

13   apprehended her former boyfriend and detained him for two

14   days until he paid bond, after her parents called to report

15   his assault of her.   When her former boyfriend found her in

16   Quito weeks later and grabbed her, he released her when she

17   threatened to call the police.        Absent evidence of the

18   government condoning her persecution, or being helpless in

19   preventing it, we decline to conclude that the agency erred.

20   See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[A]dministrative findings of

21   fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would

                                    4
 1   be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”); Jian Hui Shao v.

 2   Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 157–58 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[W]hen a

 3   petitioner bears the burden of proof, his failure to adduce

 4   evidence can itself constitute the ‘substantial evidence’

5    necessary to support the agency’s challenged decision.”).

 6       Lema-KaJuana abandoned her CAT claim by not arguing it

 7   aside from a conclusory statement in her opposition to the

 8   Government’s motion for summary denial.        See Yueqing Zhang

 9   v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (deeming

10   claim   abandoned   where    brief   “devote[d]   only   a   single

11   conclusory sentence to the argument”).         Moreover, the CAT

12   claim fails on the same grounds as asylum and withholding

13   because a CAT applicant must show that it is “more likely

14   than not” that she will be tortured upon removal to a country

15   or that authorities in that country will acquiesce to her

16   torture.     8   C.F.R.     § 1208.16(c)(4);   see   also    id.   §

17   1208.18(a)(1).

18       For the foregoing reasons, the motion for summary denial

19   is CONSTRUED as the Government’s brief, and the petition for

20

21

                                      5
1   review is DENIED.   All other pending motions and applications

2   are DENIED and stays VACATED.

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

                                    6