20-205 Herrera-Figueroa v. Garland BIA Hochul, IJ A202 138 702/703 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 4th day of April, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 BETH ROBINSON, 9 MYRNA PÉREZ, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ANA MARIA HERRERA-FIGUEROA, 14 LLANY BERENICE ESCALANTE- 15 HERRERA, 16 Petitioners, 17 18 v. 20-205 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONERS: Jose Perez, Esq., Syracuse, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; 1 Bernard A. Joseph, Senior 2 Litigation Counsel; Katherine A. 3 Smith, 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 Petitioners Ana Maria Herrera-Figueroa and her daughter

12 Llany Berenice Escalante-Herrera, natives and citizens of

13 Guatemala, seek review of a December 18, 2019, decision of

14 the BIA affirming a March 20, 2018, decision of an Immigration

15 Judge (“IJ”), denying their applications for asylum,

16 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

17 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ana Maria Herrera-Figueroa,

18 Llany Berenice Escalante-Herrera, Nos. A 202 138 702/703

19 (B.I.A. Dec. 18, 2019), aff’g Nos. A 202 138 702/703 (Immig.

20 Ct. Buffalo Mar. 20, 2018). We assume the parties’

21 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history

22 in this case.

23 Issues Before This Court

24 We have considered the IJ’s decision as modified by the

2 1 BIA, i.e., minus the arguments for denying relief that the

2 BIA did not reach. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of

3 Justice,

(2d Cir. 2005). We review

4 questions of law de novo. See Paloka v. Holder,

191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). We review findings of fact for

6 substantial evidence, “treating them as ‘conclusive unless

7 any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude the

8 contrary[.]’”

(quoting

(b)(4)(B)).

9 Petitioners alleged past persecution and fear of future

10 persecution and torture based on domestic violence at the

11 hands of Herrera-Figueroa’s former partner and because gang

12 members had killed Herrera-Figueroa’s father and had attacked

13 Herrera-Figueroa. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of asylum

14 and withholding because Petitioners’ two proposed particular

15 social groups—(1) “women subjected to domestic violence by

16 partners in Guatemala,” and (2) family members of victims of

17 gang violence—were not legally cognizable. With respect to

18 the family-based social group, the BIA additionally affirmed

19 the IJ’s denial based on the IJ’s nexus finding because

20 Herrera-Figueroa had not shown that gang members were

21 motivated to harm her on account of her family membership.

3 1 The BIA also affirmed the IJ’s denial of CAT relief, finding

2 that there was no clear error in the IJ’s determination that

3 Petitioners had not established that it was more likely than

4 not that they would be tortured upon removal to Guatemala.

5 Discussion

6 First, Petitioners have abandoned their claims to asylum

7 and withholding of removal on the basis of their proposed

8 domestic-violence social group. Their counseled brief to

9 this Court does not address this ground for the denial of

10 relief. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,

, 541

11 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Issues not sufficiently argued in the

12 briefs are considered waived and normally will not be

13 addressed on appeal.” (quotation marks omitted)).

14 Second, with respect to the second proposed social group,

15 the family-based group, the BIA relied on Matter of L-E-A-,

16

(A.G. 2019) (“Matter of L-E-A- II”) to

17 affirm the IJ’s decision, and Matter of L-E-A- II has since

18 been vacated, see Matter of L-E-A-,

(A.G.

19 2021). Accordingly, we move on to the BIA’s further ground

20 for affirming the IJ’s decision that Petitioners did not

21 establish the requisite causal nexus between family

4 1 membership and fear of persecution. Indeed, Petitioners’

2 brief does not challenge the agency’s finding that Herrera-

3 Figueroa did not demonstrate that the gang members were

4 motivated to target her or would continue to target her

5 because of her family relationship. To the extent the brief

6 could be read to challenge this ground for the denial of

7 relief, we conclude that substantial evidence supports this

8 finding. See Gjolaj v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration

9 Servs.,

(2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing nexus

10 determination for substantial evidence).

11 Third, with respect to their CAT claim, Petitioners’

12 brief contains only vague and conclusory statements that they

13 will be tortured in Guatemala and that the Guatemalan

14 government will be unable or unwilling to protect them from

15 “those type[s] of situations where Guatemalans need

16 protection from perpetrators,” and does not cite any country

17 conditions evidence to support the claim. We conclude that

18 substantial evidence supports the finding that Petitioners

19 did not establish that they would more likely than not suffer

20 future harm amounting to torture if removed to Guatemala.

21 See Nasrallah v. Barr,

, 1692–93 (2020)

5 1 (judicial review of the denial of CAT relief is ”under the

2 deferential substantial-evidence standard”).

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

6