19-2674 Lemus-Landaverde v. Garland BIA Farber, IJ A202 125 746 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 29th day of October, two thousand twenty- 5 one. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 JOSE EDUARDO LEMUS-LANDAVERDE, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-2674 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Abdolreza Mazaheri, Sethi & 25 Mazaheri, LLC, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 28 General; Anthony B. Nicastro, 1 Assistant Director; Timothy Bo 2 Stanton, Trial Attorney, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 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 Jose Eduardo Lemus-Landaverde, a native and

11 citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a July 25, 2019,

12 decision of the BIA affirming a February 5, 2019, decision of

13 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of

14 removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

15 (“CAT”). In re Jose Eduardo Lemus-Landaverde, No. A 202 125

16 746 (B.I.A. July 25, 2019), aff’g No. A 202 125 746 (Immig.

17 Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 5, 2019). We assume the parties’

18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the

20 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review

22 are well established. See

(b)(4)(B) (“The

23 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any

24 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 2 1 contrary.”); Y.C. v. Holder,

(2d Cir. 2013)

2 (reviewing agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual

3 finds under the substantial evidence standard). Because

4 Lemus-Landaverde did not exhaust his challenges to the IJ’s

5 denial of a continuance or the IJ’s denial of his claims for

6 humanitarian asylum and CAT protection, we address only the

7 agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. See

8 Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,

(2d

9 Cir. 2007); Foster v. INS,

(2d Cir. 2004).

10 To establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of

11 removal, an “applicant must establish that race, religion,

12 nationality, membership in a particular social group, or

13 political opinion was or will be at least one central reason

14 for” the claimed persecution.

(b)(1)(B)(i)

15 (asylum); see

§ 1231(b)(3)(A) (withholding); Matter of C-

16 T-L,

(B.I.A. 2010) (holding that

17 “one central reason” standard also applies to withholding of

18 removal). The harm must be inflicted either by the

19 government of a country or by private individuals that “the

20 government is unable or unwilling to control.” Pan v.

21 Holder,

(2d Cir. 2015). An applicant “must

3 1 provide some evidence of [a persecutor’s motives], direct or

2 circumstantial.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias,

, 483

3 (1992); see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494

(2d Cir. 2007).

5 Lemus-Landaverde does not challenge the agency’s

6 conclusions that he did not establish the Salvadoran

7 government was unable or unwilling to protect him from abusive

8 family members or bullies, or show a well-founded fear of

9 future persecution stemming from the murders of other family

10 members in El Salvador. He has thus waived review of

11 dispositive grounds for the denial of asylum and withholding

12 of removal. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,

, 541

13 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). Were we to reach these issues,

14 we would find no error because the record supports the

15 agency’s findings. Lemus-Landaverde testified that the

16 Salvadoran government removed him from his abusive home

17 situation and conceded that he never sought protection from

18 bullying from any adult or authorities. Cf. In re O-Z- & I-

19 Z-,

(B.I.A. 1998) (finding government

20 unable or unwilling to control persecutors where applicant

21 reported at least three incidents of violence to the police

4 1 and the police took no action beyond writing a report). As

2 to his fear of future persecution on account of his family

3 membership, he did not know who murdered two of his cousins

4 and one cousin’s partner or why they were murdered, so there

5 was no direct or circumstantial evidence that his family was

6 targeted as a group. See Elias-Zacarias,

.

7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

8 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

9 stays VACATED.

10 FOR THE COURT: 11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 12 Clerk of Court

5