Filed: Mar. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 17-149 Arguijo-Anariba v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A206 625 565 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
Summary: 17-149 Arguijo-Anariba v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A206 625 565 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 T..
More
17-149
Arguijo-Anariba v. Barr
BIA
Straus, IJ
A206 625 565
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 27th day of March, two thousand nineteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
8 ROBERT D. SACK,
9 REENA RAGGI,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 SONIA ARGUIJO-ANARIBA,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 17-149
17 NAC
18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Robert C. Ross, West Haven, CT.
24
25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
26 Attorney General; Paul Fiorino,
27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Deitz
28 P. Lefort, Trial Attorney, Office
29 of Immigration Litigation, United
30 States Department of Justice,
31 Washington, 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 Sonia Arguijo-Anariba, a native and citizen
6 of Honduras, seeks review of a BIA decision affirming an
7 Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of
8 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
9 (“CAT”). In re Sonia Arguijo-Anariba, No. A206 625 565
10 (B.I.A. Dec. 20, 2016), aff’g No. A206 625 565 (Immig. Ct.
11 Hartford May 16, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity
12 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
13 The BIA declined to reach the IJ’s adverse credibility
14 determination, and we review only the determination made by
15 the BIA. See Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520,
16 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Therefore, we will assume, as the BIA
17 did, petitioner’s credibility. Applying well-established
18 standards of review, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), Yanqin
19 Weng v. Holder,
562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009), we identify
20 no error in the agency’s determination that Arguijo-Anariba
21 failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear
22 of future persecution on account of a protected ground.
2
1 Arguijo-Anariba had to demonstrate that she experienced
2 past persecution or feared future persecution on account of
3 her “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
4 social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C.
5 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); id. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Asylum or
6 withholding of removal “may be granted where there is more
7 than one motive for mistreatment, as long as at least one
8 central reason for the mistreatment is on account of a
9 protected ground.” Acharya v. Holder,
761 F.3d 289, 297 (2d
10 Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Harm
11 motivated purely by wealth is not based on a protected ground.
12 See Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey,
509 F.3d 70, 73–74 (2d Cir. 2007).
13 An applicant asserting persecution based on a protected
14 ground “must provide some evidence of [a persecutor’s
15 motives], direct or circumstantial.” I.N.S. v. Elias-
16 Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (emphasis in original);
17 see also Manzur v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.,
494 F.3d 281,
18 291 (2d Cir. 2007).
19 Arguijo-Anariba sought asylum and withholding of removal
20 based on her membership in two asserted social groups:
21 landowners and female heads of households. Even assuming
22 that these groups are cognizable under 8 U.S.C.
23 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), the agency reasonably determined that
3
1 Arguijo-Anariba failed to demonstrate that her membership in
2 those groups motivated the alleged harms. Specifically, she
3 offered no direct or circumstantial evidence to demonstrate
4 that she was, or will be, targeted based on her status as a
5 landowner or as a head of household. See I.N.S. v. Elias-
6 Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483; see also Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey,
7 509 F.3d at 73 (“When the harm visited upon members of a group
8 is attributable to the incentives presented to ordinary
9 criminals rather than to persecution, the scales are tipped
10 away from considering those people a ‘particular social
11 group’”).
12 Because Arguijo-Anariba failed to demonstrate past
13 persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on
14 account of a protected ground, the agency did not err in
15 denying her asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
16 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i);
id. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Arguijo-Anariba
17 does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief.
18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
19 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal
20 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED,
21 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition
22 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument
23 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of
4
1 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule
2 34.1(b).
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe
5 Clerk of Court
5
