Court Opinion

ID: 9370412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-13 16:00:23.91224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:21.158452
License: Public Domain

20-1478
     Baranovic v. Garland
                                                                              BIA
                                                                         Straus, IJ
                                                         A208 112 914/915/916/917

                            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 13th day of February, 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   JAN BARANOVIC, ERIKA
15   BARANOVICOVA, AKA ERICA
16   BARANOVICOVA, JAN BARANOVIC,
17   J.B.,
18            Petitioners,
19
20                     v.                               20-1478
21                                                      NAC
22   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
23   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
24            Respondent.
25   _____________________________________
26
27
 1   FOR PETITIONERS:           Justin Conlon, Law Offices of
 2                              Justin Conlon, Hartford, CT
 3
 4   FOR RESPONDENT:            Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant
 5                              Attorney General; Melissa Neiman-
 6                              Kelting, Assistant Director;
 7                              Giovanni B. Di Maggio, Trial
 8                              Attorney, Office of Immigration
 9                              Litigation, United States
10                              Department of Justice, Washington,
11                              DC

12       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

15   is DENIED.

16       Petitioners     Jan    Baranovic    (“Jan    Sr.”),    Erika

17   Baranovicova, and their children Jan (“Jan Jr.”) and J.B.,

18   natives and citizens of Slovakia, seek review of an April 13,

19   2020 decision of the BIA affirming an April 3, 2018 decision

20   of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for

21   asylum and withholding of removal. 1     In re Jan Baranovic,

22   Erika Baranovicova, Jan Baranovic, J.B., Nos. A 208 112

23   914/915/916/917 (B.I.A. Apr. 13, 2020), aff’g No. A 208 112

24   914/915/916/917 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Apr. 3, 2018).           We

     1Petitioners have explicitly waived relief under the Convention
     Against Torture.
                                    2
 1   assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and

 2   procedural history.

 3       We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions

4    “for the sake of completeness.”             Wangchuck v. Dep’t of

5    Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006).          We review

6    factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of

7    law de novo.     See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513

8    (2d Cir. 2009).

 9       Petitioners sought asylum and withholding of removal

10   based on the fact that Jan Jr. was targeted by a pedophile

11   ring in Slovakia.         They asserted that Jan Jr. had been

12   persecuted in the past on account of his sexual orientation

13   and membership in a particular social group of witnesses in

14   criminal proceedings, that he had a well-founded fear of

15   persecution on those grounds, and that the family would be

16   targeted because of their relationship to him.          Petitioners

17   had the burden to show either past persecution or a well-

18   founded fear of future persecution on account of “race,

19   religion, nationality, membership in a particular social

20   group,   or   political   opinion.”     8   U.S.C.   §§ 1101(a)(42),

21   1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3).        “To qualify as persecution the

                                      3
1    conduct at issue must be attributable to the government,

2    whether directly because engaged in by government officials,

3    or indirectly because engaged in by private persons whom the

4    government is unable or unwilling to control.”        Scarlett v.

5    Barr, 957 F.3d 316, 328 (2d Cir. 2020) (quotation marks

6    omitted).

 7          As an initial matter, Jan Jr.’s parents and brother do

8    not challenge in their brief to this Court the agency’s

9    conclusion that the family failed to meet its burden for

10   asylum and withholding because they did not suffer past harm

11   or establish a well-founded fear of future harm.        They have

12   therefore abandoned any challenge to the agency’s conclusion

13   that they failed to meet their burden of proof.       See Yueqing

14   Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir.

15   2005) (deeming claims not discussed in brief abandoned).

16   Moreover, the agency reasonably concluded that Petitioners

17   failed to show that the government of Slovakia would be unable

18   or unwilling to protect them from the pedophile ring.          The

19   record reflects that the men who targeted Jan Jr. found their

20   underage victims, including Jan Jr., in a chat room and abused

21   them    by   enticing   them   into   sexual   relationships   and

                                      4
1    soliciting     explicit      photographs.          Slovak       authorities

2    investigated and convicted some abusers.                Although Jan Jr.

 3   alleged that he subsequently received threatening texts, he

4    did not change his phone number, close his chat room accounts,

5    or report the texts to police.            While Jan Sr. later informed

6    an investigator of the messages, the investigator did not

 7   take any action because Jan Jr. was no longer under the age

8    of consent.        The investigator did warn the family about

9    possible blackmail attempts, but no such attempts were made.

10   While Jan Sr. testified that the government of Slovakia was

11   not adequately investigating pedophiles, the authorities were

12   investigating the ring before Jan Jr.’s abuse began, and they

13   alerted Jan Jr.’s parents to what was happening.                  The 2016

14   State Department report on Slovakia notes official corruption

15   and low trust in the judicial system, but it also notes that

16   Slovakia   has     strict   laws    against    sexual    exploitation   of

17   children     and    prohibits      discrimination       based   on   sexual

18   orientation.       On this record, the agency reasonably concluded

19   that Petitioners failed to show that authorities were unable

20   or unwilling to protect them.            See Scarlett, 957 F.3d at 328.

21

                                          5
1        Petitioners argue that remand is warranted because Matter

2    of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021), vacated prior

3    decisions setting out a heightened standard for showing that

4    the government was unable or unwilling to control private

5    conduct.     The vacatur does not merit remand in this case.

6    First, the agency relied on authority pre-dating the vacated

7    decisions in concluding that Petitioners failed to show that

8    the government would be unable or unwilling to protect them.

 9   Second, the standard set out in the vacated cases was not a

10   change from prior case law.         See Scarlett, 957 F.3d at 333.

11   And regardless of the applicable standard, the facts here

12   show that the government did act to protect Jan Jr.

13       As     the    above-mentioned       grounds   are   dispositive   of

14   Petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims, we

15   need not reach the agency’s findings related to Petitioners’

16   proposed particular social groups or nexus to a protected

17   ground,    and    remand   for   further      consideration    is     not

18   warranted.       See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976)

19   (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to

20   make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary

21   to the results they reach.”).

                                         6
1       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review and

2   motion to remand are DENIED.       All other pending motions and

3   applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

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

                                   7