Gonzalez-Polanco v. Rosen
Gonzalez-Polanco v. Rosen
Opinion
19-30 Gonzalez-Polanco v. Rosen BIA Christensen, IJ A 206 846 591/592 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 TO 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 January, two thousand twenty- 5 one. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 ROBERT D. SACK, 10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 MARIA FERNANDA GONZALEZ-POLANCO, 15 CHRISTOPHER MAURICIO ORELLANA- 16 GONZALEZ 17 Petitioners, 18 19 v. 19-30 20 NAC 21 JEFFREY A. ROSEN, ACTING UNITED 22 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 Respondent. 1 24 _____________________________________
1Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen is substituted for former Attorney General William P. Barr. 1 2 FOR PETITIONERS: H. Raymond Fasano, Attorney, 3 Youman, Madeo & Fasano, LLP, New 4 York, NY. 5 6 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffery Bossert Clark, Acting 7 Assistant Attorney General; 8 Shelley R. Goad , Assistant 9 Director; Kristin Moresi, Trial 10 Attorney, Office of Immigration 11 Litigation, United States 12 Department of Justice, Washington, 13 DC.
14 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
15 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
16 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
17 is DENIED.
18 Petitioners Maria Fernanda Gonzalez-Polanco and her son
19 Christopher Mauricio Orellana-Gonzalez, both natives and
20 citizens of Guatemala, seek review of a December 3, 2018,
21 decision of the BIA affirming an October 23, 2017, decision
22 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of
23 removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
24 (“CAT”). In re Maria Fernanda Gonzalez-Polanco, Christopher
25 Mauricio Orellana-Gonzalez, No. A 206 846 591/592 (B.I.A.
26 Dec. 3, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 846 591/592 (Immig. Ct. New
27 York City Oct. 23, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity
28 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 2 1 We have reviewed the decision of the IJ as supplemented
2 by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales,
417 F.3d 268, 271(2d
3 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well
4 established. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder,
5
762 F.3d 191, 195(2d Cir. 2014) (reviewing factual findings
6 for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo); Gjolaj
7 v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs.,
468 F.3d 140,
8 143 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing nexus determination for
9 substantial evidence).
10 An asylum applicant must establish past persecution or a
11 well-founded fear of future persecution and that “race,
12 religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
13 group, or political opinion was or will be at least one
14 central reason for persecuting the applicant.”
8 U.S.C. § 151158(b)(1)(B)(i); see also Paloka,
762 F.3d at 195(“the
16 applicant must establish both that the group itself was
17 cognizable and that the alleged persecutors targeted the
18 applicant on account of her membership in that group”
19 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). Although
20 persecutors may have more than one motive, see Acharya v.
21 Holder,
761 F.3d 289, 297(2d Cir. 2014), “the protected
3 1 ground cannot play a minor role . . . [t]hat is, it cannot be
2 incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to
3 another reason for harm,” In re J-B-N- & S-M-, 24 I. & N.
4 Dec. 208, 214 (B.I.A. 2007).
5 The agency reasonably determined that Gonzalez-Polanco
6 failed to show that her membership in her proposed social
7 group of single mothers without male protection was one
8 central reason that gang members targeted her for extortion.
9 Gonzalez-Polanco testified that gang members extorted her
10 because they believed she had money from her partner in the
11 United States. And she had no evidence that the gang members
12 would have attempted to extort her if they did not think she
13 could pay. Accordingly, the record reflects that the gang
14 members’ motivation was financial gain, not to harm her on
15 account of a protected ground. See Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey,
16
509 F.3d 70, 73(2d Cir. 2007) (“When the harm visited upon
17 members of a group is attributable to the incentives presented
18 to ordinary criminals rather than to persecution, the scales
19 are tipped away from considering those people a particular
20 social group within the meaning of the INA.”); Melgar de
21 Torres v. Reno,
191 F.3d 307, 314(2d Cir. 1999)
4 1 (“general crime conditions are not a stated ground” for
2 asylum).
3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
4 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
5 stays VACATED.
6 FOR THE COURT: 7 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 8 Clerk of Court
5
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished