Filed: Sep. 14, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 10-2187-ag Buitrago-Valencia v. Holder BIA Montante, Jr., IJ A095 968 092 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
Summary: 10-2187-ag Buitrago-Valencia v. Holder BIA Montante, Jr., IJ A095 968 092 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 D..
More
10-2187-ag
Buitrago-Valencia v. Holder
BIA
Montante, Jr., IJ
A095 968 092
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 14th day of September, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 RALPH K. WINTER,
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 ROBERT D. SACK,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 ______________________________________
12
13 LUIS A. BUITRAGO-VALENCIA,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 10-2187-ag
17 v. NAC
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 ______________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Nancy M. Vizer, Chicago, Illinois.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; John S. Hogan, Senior
28 Litigation Counsel; Aimee J.
29 Frederickson, Trial Attorney, Office
30 of Immigration Litigation, Civil
31 Division, United States Department
32 of Justice, Washington, D.C.
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 Luis A. Buitrago-Valencia, a native and
6 citizen of Colombia, seeks review of a May 6, 2010, order of
7 the BIA affirming the June 10, 2009, decision of immigration
8 judge (“IJ”) Philip J. Montante, Jr., denying his
9 application for withholding of removal and relief under the
10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Luis A. Buitrago
11 Valencia, Yalila Buitrago Silva, Nos. A095 968 092, A095 968
12 093 (B.I.A. May 6, 2010), aff’g No. A095 968 092 (Immig. Ct.
13 Buffalo, NY June 10, 2009).1 We assume the parties’
14 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history
15 of the case.
16 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
17 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang
18 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005).
19 The applicable standards of review are well-established.
20 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v.
21 Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
1
Yalila Buitrago Silva, Buitrago-Valencia’s daughter, is
not a petitioner before this Court because the BIA remanded
her proceedings to the IJ for consideration of her application
for adjustment of status.
2
1 As a preliminary matter, Buitrago-Valencia’s challenges
2 to the IJ’s adverse credibility determination are not
3 properly before the Court, as the BIA specifically declined
4 to address Buitrago-Valencia’s credibility, determining
5 instead that, even if deemed credible, he failed to
6 establish his eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT
7 relief. See Xue Hong Yang, 426 F.3d at 522.
8 With respect to Buitrago-Valencia’s application for
9 withholding of removal, the BIA did not err in finding that
10 he failed to establish that it is more likely than not that
11 any mistreatment he suffered, or may suffer in the future,
12 would be on account of any protected ground. 8 C.F.R.
13 § 1208.16(b)(1) During his initial proceedings before the
14 IJ, Buitrago-Valencia testified that he had been the target
15 of extortion attempts by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
16 Colombia (“FARC”) since 1998, and that “many of the people
17 who have properties” were similarly threatened, stating that
18 “[y]ou have to pay money until you die in Colombia.” On
19 remand, Buitrago-Valencia further testified that “landowners
20 always receive threats,” and that “[a]ll of the property
21 owners . . . had to pay the guerilla forces.” Thus, the
22 record indicates that Buitrago-Valencia was threatened based
23 on his perceived status as a wealthy landowner, rather than
3
1 his political opinion or social group membership. See
2 Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70, 73-74 (2d Cir. 2007)
3 (finding no error in the BIA’s conclusion that “wealth or
4 affluence is simply too subjective, inchoate, and variable
5 to provide the sole basis for membership in a particular
6 social group.”). Furthermore, although Buitrago-Valencia
7 testified to several instances of harassment of his family
8 members, including an incident where his wife and daughter
9 were threatened by armed men on motorcycles, a kidnaping
10 attempt on another daughter, and his son’s shooting, he did
11 not indicate that they were in any way connected with his
12 political activities. Indeed, Buitrago-Valencia’s testimony
13 that his family received a letter from the FARC “asking for
14 twelve million five hundred pesos” as a “donation,” further
15 supports the agency’s determination that he and his family
16 were targeted specifically for their money.
17 With respect to Buitrago-Valencia’s application for CAT
18 relief, the BIA did not err in finding that the evidence in
19 the record was insufficient to establish that the Colombian
20 government would remain willfully blind to, or acquiesce in,
21 any acts of torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); see also
22 Khouzam v. Ashcroft,
361 F.3d 161, 171 (2d Cir. 2004). As
23 the BIA noted, “while the country information in the record
4
1 reveals that the FARC is still operative in Colombia, it
2 also reveals that the group no longer constitutes the same
3 threat in Colombia as it did in past years.” Moreover, the
4 U.S. Department of State’s 2007 Country Report on Terrorism
5 indicates that “[t]he Government of Colombia . . . [has]
6 continued vigorous law enforcement, intelligence, military,
7 and economic measures” against the FARC. Buitrago-Valencia
8 points to no evidence to the contrary.
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
14 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
15 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
16 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
19
5
