Chusino v. Blanche

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: July 15, 2026
• Docket: 24-27
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

24-27 Ortiz-Chusino v. Blanche BIA Drucker, IJ A220 446 759 A220 996 845/846/897

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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 15th day of July, two thousand twenty- 4 six. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 8 Chief Judge, 9 GUIDO CALABRESI, 10 MYRNA PÉREZ, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 CHRISTIAN ALEXANDER ORTIZ- 15 CHUSINO, ANA GABRIELA 16 SIGUENZA-QUITO, K.A.O.S., M.A.O.S., 17 Petitioners, 18 19 v. 24-27 20 NAC 21 TODD BLANCHE, ACTING UNITED 22 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 1 Respondent. * 2 _____________________________________ 3 4 FOR PETITIONERS: Stuart Goldberg, Umit Gursoy, Gursoy Law 5 Firm, P.C., Brooklyn, NY. 6 7 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 8 Attorney General; Keith I. McManus, 9 Assistant Director; Nelle M. Seymour, Trial 10 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 11 United States Department of Justice, 12 Washington, DC.

13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of

14 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

15 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

16 Petitioners Christian Alexander Ortiz-Chusino, Ana Gabriela Siguenza-

17 Quito, and their minor children, natives and citizens of Ecuador, seek review of a

18 November 29, 2023, decision of the BIA affirming an August 2, 2022, decision of

19 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of

20 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re

21 Christian Alexander Ortiz-Chusino, et al., Nos. A220 446 759, A220 996 845/846/897

22 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2023), aff’g Nos. A220 446 759, A220 996 845/846/897 (Immigr.

* The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Pamela Bondi as Respondent. 2 1 N.Y.C. Aug. 2, 2022). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

2 and procedural history.

3 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t

4 of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s factual

5 findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. See Yanqin Weng

6 v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). “[T]he administrative findings of fact

7 are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude

8 to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

9 An applicant for asylum and withholding of removal has the burden to

10 demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear (asylum) or likelihood

11 (withholding) of future persecution “‘on account of race, religion, nationality,

12 membership in a particular social group, or political opinion’” inflicted by either

13 the government or by private parties that the government is “unable or unwilling

14 to control.” Pan v. Holder, 777 F.3d 540, 543 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting 8 U.S.C.

15 § 1101(a)(42)); see also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A), (C).

16 “A protected ground cannot be ‘incidental’ or ‘tangential’ to another reason for

17 harm.” Quituizaca v. Garland, 52 F.4th 103, 114–15 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting In re J-

18 B-N- & S-M-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 208, 214 (B.I.A 2007)). The agency was not compelled

3 1 to conclude that Petitioners’ proposed social groups or imputed political opinions

2 were central reasons they were targeted because they alleged only that gang

3 members were motivated by criminal incentives of recruiting people to assist them

4 in trafficking drugs. See id.; see also Garcia-Aranda v. Garland, 53 F.4th 752, 757 (2d

5 Cir. 2022) (“[T]he fact that a persecutor targets a family member simply as a means

6 to an end is not, by itself, sufficient to establish a claim, especially if the end is not

7 connected to another protected ground.” (quoting Matter of L-E-A, 27 I. & N. Dec.

8 40, 44–46 (B.I.A. 2017))); Zelaya-Moreno v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 190, 201 (2d Cir. 2021)

9 (“[O]pposition to criminal elements such as gangs, even when such opposition

10 incurs the enmity of these elements, does not thereby become political opposition

11 simply by virtue of the gang’s reaction.”); cf. Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70,

12 73 (2d Cir. 2007) (“When the harm visited upon members of a group is attributable

13 to the incentives presented to ordinary criminals rather than to persecution, the

14 scales are tipped away from considering those people a ‘particular social group’

15 within the meaning of the [Immigration and Nationality Act].”).

16 Because Petitioners did not satisfy their burden of showing a nexus to a

17 protected ground, the agency did not err in denying asylum and withholding of

18 removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A), (C). We do

4 1 not reach the agency’s other findings because the nexus finding is dispositive of

2 asylum and withholding. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per

3 curiam) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings

4 on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).

5 Petitioners have abandoned CAT relief by not addressing it in their brief. See

6 Debique v. Garland, 58 F.4th 676, 684 (2d Cir. 2023).

7 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending

8 motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

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