Rios-Chirino v. Barr ( 2019 )

17-2546
Rios-Chirino v. Barr
BIA
Straus, IJ
A206 629 532
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 23rd day of May, two thousand nineteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT D. SACK,
8 PETER W. HALL,
9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 EDUARDO DAVID RIOS-CHIRINO,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 17-2546
17 NAC
18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Boyle, North Haven, CT.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Mary Jane
27 Candaux, Assistant Director;
28 Stephanie E. Beckett, Trial
29 Attorney, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation, United States
31 Department of Justice, Washington,
32 DC.
1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Eduardo David Rios-Chirino, a native and
6 citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a July 18, 2017, decision
7 of the BIA affirming a November 21, 2016, decision of an
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Rios-Chirino’s application
9 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Eduardo David
11 Rios-Chirino, No. A 206 629 532 (B.I.A. July 18, 2017), aff’g
12 No. A 206 629 532 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Nov. 21, 2016). We
13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
14 procedural history in this case.
15 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and
16 supplemented by the BIA. Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105
17 (2d Cir. 2007). The applicable standards of review are well
18 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v.
19 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
20 To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of
21 removal, “the applicant must establish that race, religion,
22 nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
2
1 political opinion was or will be at least one central
2 reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C.
3 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); id. § 1231(b)(3)(A); see also Matter of
4 C-T-L-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 348 (BIA 2010). Asylum or
5 withholding of removal “may be granted where there is more
6 than one motive for mistreatment, as long as at least one
7 central reason for the mistreatment is on account of a
8 protected ground.” Acharya v. Holder, 761 F.3d 289, 297
9 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). An
10 applicant “must provide some evidence of [a persecutor’s
11 motives], direct or circumstantial.” INS v. Elias-
12 Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992); see also Manzur v. U.S.
13 Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 494 F.3d 281, 291 (2d Cir. 2007).
14 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
15 determination that Rios-Chirino failed to demonstrate that
16 the harm he suffered or fears would be on account of a
17 family-based social group. See Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales,
18 464 F.3d 276, 282-83 (2d Cir. 2006) (applying substantial
19 evidence standard to nexus determination). Rios-Chirino
20 provided only minimal circumstantial evidence that the gang
21 members who assaulted him and his cousin were motivated to
22 harm him because his grandfather stopped paying MS-13. See
3
1 Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483. Although, when first
2 asked for the reason the gang members attacked him, Rios-
3 Chirino stated, “the existing problem, my grandfather not
4 paying the money . . . They told us about that. Because
5 my grandfather didn’t want to pay much money to them.”
6 However, when asked on cross-examination if the gang
7 members said why they targeted him, Rios-Chirino answered,
8 “[n]o, they just were able to take the telephone, the bike,
9 and the money.” Rios-Chirino’s written statement did not
10 report that the gang members mentioned his grandfather.
11 Because his testimony is unclear about what, if anything,
12 the gang members said about his grandfather, and he later
13 testified that the gang members did not give a reason for
14 targeting him, the agency reasonably concluded that Rios-
15 Chirino did not establish that his family membership was
16 one central reason for his assault. See Acharya, 761 F.3d
17 at 297. Additionally, Rios-Chirino’s testimony that the
18 gang members asked him and his cousin what gang they
19 belonged to is circumstantial evidence that they were
20 targeted based on suspected gang membership. See Elias-
21 Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483.
22 Furthermore, Rios-Chirino did not allege that any of his
4
1 family members in Honduras have been threatened or harmed
2 since his and his cousin’s 2013 assault. This undermines his
3 assertion that his family members or young family members are
4 being targeted. Cf. Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307,
5 313 (2d Cir. 1999) (finding claimed fear of future persecution
6 weakened when similarly situated family members remain
7 unharmed in petitioner’s native country).
8 Because Rios-Chirino had little evidence linking his
9 assault to his family ties and no evidence that any family
10 member has been harmed since 2013, the agency did not err in
11 finding that Rios-Chirino failed to establish that family
12 membership or a family-based social group was a central reason
13 that he was harmed or would be harmed by gang members. See
14 Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483; Acharya, 761 F.3d at 297.
15 Because the agency’s determination that there was
16 insufficient proof of this nexus disposes of Rios-Chirino’s
17 case, it is unnecessary to reach the agency’s finding that
18 Rios-Chirino’s assault did not rise to the level of
19 persecution. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976)
20 (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to
21 make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary
22 to the results they reach.”).
5
1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
2 DENIED.
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
5 Clerk of Court
6
6