Court Opinion

ID: 9412719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 15:01:38.958116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:37.141799
License: Public Domain

20-3042
     Armas-Armas v. Garland
                                                                               BIA
                                                                         Laforest, IJ
                                                                       A206 373 541
                              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 1st day of August, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            DENNY CHIN,
 9            RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
10            ALISON J. NATHAN,
11                 Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13
14   SEGUNDO PABLO ARMAS-ARMAS,
15            Petitioner,
16
17                    v.                                     20-3042
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; Bernard A.
 1                                    Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel;
 2                                    Enitan O. Otunla, Trial Attorney,
 3                                    Office of Immigration Litigation,
 4                                    United States Department of
 5                                    Justice, Washington, DC.

 6        UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

 9   is DENIED.

10        Petitioner     Segundo      Pablo    Armas-Armas,     a   native   and

11   citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of an August 10, 2020

12   decision of the BIA affirming a September 4, 2018 decision of

13   an   Immigration    Judge   (“IJ”)       denying    his   application   for

14   asylum,    withholding      of    removal,    and     relief   under    the

15   Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).                In re Segundo Pablo

16   Armas-Armas, No. A 206 373 541 (B.I.A. Aug. 10, 2020), aff’g

17   No. A 206 373 541 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 4, 2018).                  We

18   assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

19   procedural history.

20        We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by

21   the BIA.     See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d

22   Cir. 2005).        We review factual findings for substantial

23   evidence and questions of law de novo.             See Paloka v. Holder,

24   762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014).                  “[T]he administrative
                                2
 1   findings   of    fact   are   conclusive     unless    any    reasonable

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

 3   8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

 4       We deny the petition because the record supports the

 5   agency’s conclusion that conditions in Ecuador have changed

 6   such that Armas-Armas no longer has a well-founded fear of

 7   persecution or torture, and he has both failed to exhaust and

 8   waived any challenge to that determination.             Applicants for

 9   asylum   and    withholding   of   removal    must     establish   past

10   persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution.

11   8 C.F.R.   §§ 1208.13(b),      1208.16(b).        Past       persecution

12   creates a rebuttable presumption of future “persecution on

13   the basis of the original claim.”       8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1);

14   see also id. § 1208.16(b)(1) (same as to withholding).             “That

15   presumption may be rebutted if an . . . immigration judge”

16   finds “by a preponderance of the evidence” that “[t]here has

17   been a fundamental change in circumstances such that the

18   applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution.”

19   Id. § 1208.13(b)(1); id. § 1208.13(b)(1)(ii) (placing burden

20   to rebut presumption on the Government).              An applicant for

21   CAT relief has the burden to establish that he would “more

                                        3
 1   likely than not” be tortured.                  Id. § 1208.16(c)(2).                To

 2   determine the likelihood of torture, the agency may consider,

 3   among     other        things,     “relevant        information          regarding

 4   conditions in the country of removal.”                   Id. § 1208.16(c)(3).

 5         Armas-Armas       alleged     past    persecution          in    Ecuador     on

 6   account    of    his    affiliation     with    a    political         party    that

 7   supported the rights of indigenous people.                            However, he

 8   conceded that a new president has been elected whose policies

 9   are favorable to indigenous people, and that he can return

10   and     live    safely     in     Ecuador.          On     this       record,    the

11   preponderance of the evidence reflects that Armas-Armas no

12   longer has a fear of persecution or torture.                          See Lecaj v.

13   Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 115 (2d Cir. 2010) (requiring “an

14   individualized         analysis    of   how    changed         conditions       would

15   affect the specific petitioner’s situation” (quotation marks

16   omitted)).

17         Moreover, Armas-Armas did not challenge the IJ’s finding

18   of changed circumstances on appeal to the BIA and does not

19   challenge       it   here.        Accordingly,           the    issue     is    both

20   unexhausted and waived.            See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426

21   F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (deeming abandoned

                                             4
1   claims not argued in brief); Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d 75, 78

2   (2d Cir. 2004) (requiring applicant to raise issues before

3   the BIA to preserve them for judicial review).

4       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

5   DENIED.   All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

6   stays VACATED.

7                               FOR THE COURT:
8                               Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
9                               Clerk of Court

                                  5