Criollo-Casicana v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: February 2, 2026
• Docket: 24-184
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

24-184 Criollo-Casicana v. Bondi BIA Ling, IJ A220 323 199/196/197/198

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 2nd day of February, two thousand 4 twenty-six. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 ALISON J. NATHAN, 9 MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JENNY CRIOLLO-CASICANA, LUIS 14 FERNANDO TUZA-PILAPANTA, A.T-C., 15 D.T-C.,* 16 Petitioners, 17 18 v. 24-184 19 NAC 20 PAMELA BONDI, UNITED STATES

*We have used only initials to refer to the minor petitioner in this publicly accessible order, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(3) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 25(a)(5). 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 2 3 Respondent. 4 _____________________________________ 5 6 FOR PETITIONERS: Michael Borja, Borja Law Firm, P.C., Jackson 7 Heights, NY. 8 9 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 10 Attorney General; Kohsei Ugumori, Senior 11 Litigation Counsel; Aric A. Anderson, Trial 12 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 13 United States Department of Justice, 14 Washington, DC.

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

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

17 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

18 Petitioners Jenny Criollo-Casicana, Luis Fernando Tuza-Pilapanta, and their

19 minor children, natives and citizens of Ecuador, seek review of a December 20,

20 2023, decision of the BIA affirming a March 13, 2023, decision of an Immigration

21 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

22 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Criollo-Casicana, et al., Nos. A 220 323

23 199/196/197/198 (B.I.A. Dec. 20, 2023), aff’g Nos. A 220 323 199/196/197/198

24 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 13, 2023). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

25 underlying facts and procedural history.

2 1 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan

2 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review fact-finding “under

3 the substantial evidence standard,” and we review questions of law and the

4 application of law to fact de novo. Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir.

5 2018). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable

6 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary[.]” 8 U.S.C.

7 § 1252(b)(4)(B).

8 The petitioners do not meaningfully address the IJ’s findings, adopted and

9 affirmed by the BIA, that they did not demonstrate past harm rising to the level of

10 persecution, a well-founded fear or likelihood of future persecution, that the

11 Ecuadorian government would be unable or unwilling to protect them, that they

12 could not internally relocate to avoid harm, or that they would be likely tortured

13 with the acquiescence of the government. They are thus deemed to have

14 abandoned review of these dispositive grounds for the denial of asylum,

15 withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Debique v. Garland, 58 F.4th 676,

16 684 (2d Cir. 2023) (“We consider abandoned any claims not adequately presented

17 in an appellant’s brief, and an appellant’s failure to make legal or factual

18 arguments constitutes abandonment.”) (quotation marks omitted); Yueqing Zhang

19 v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (deeming argument abandoned

3 1 where brief “devote[d] only a single conclusory sentence” to it). To the extent the

2 petitioners’ brief addresses these bases for the IJ’s denial of relief, it does so by way

3 of conclusory assertions without record citation or supporting law, which is

4 insufficient to present issues for our review. See Yueqing, 426 F.3d at 545 n.7; see

5 also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (a brief’s argument section must be accompanied

6 by “citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant

7 relies”).

8 Moreover, the arguments raised for petitioners by their counsel are either

9 not relevant to the facts of the case or lack merit. For example, they argue that

10 they established a nexus to a protected ground, but the IJ did not deny asylum or

11 withholding of removal on those grounds. And contrary to their position that

12 withholding of removal has a less stringent nexus requirement than the “one

13 central reason” requirement for asylum, the same nexus standard applies to both

14 forms of relief. See Quituizaca v. Garland, 52 F.4th 103, 1114 (2d Cir. 2022). Their

15 brief devotes just a few sentences to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief and incorrectly

16 states that the IJ failed to consider the claim; to the contrary, the IJ addressed CAT

17 relief and expressly found no past torture, that the fear of future torture was

18 speculative, and that petitioners had not shown that the Ecuadorian government

19 would acquiesce to their torture. Their attempt to challenge the agency’s

4 1 acquiescence finding is immaterial here because they do not address the agency’s

2 dispositive finding that they did not demonstrate they would more likely than not

3 be tortured. See Garcia-Aranda v. Garland, 53 F.4th 752, 758 (2d Cir. 2022) (holding

4 that “[a]nalysis of a CAT claim boils down to a two-step inquiry”—namely, a

5 showing of likely torture and state action).

6 Given the defects in briefing by the petitioners’ counsel, Michael Borja, Esq.,

7 a copy of this order will be forwarded to the Grievance Panel. As outlined above,

8 the brief fails to address dispositive issues, lacks record citations as required by

9 Fed. R. App. P. 28(a), misstates the record and relevant legal standards, and raises

10 challenges to findings the agency never made. †

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

12 motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

13 FOR THE COURT: 14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 15 Clerk of Court

† The argument section of the petitioners’ brief also appears to have been largely copied from that of a brief submitted by Borja on behalf of a different client, whose petition for review is also currently pending, using the name of the other petitioner and setting forth facts of his case that are not pertinent to this case. See Chadan Eugenio v. Bondi, No. 24- 655, doc. 17 (2d Cir. 2024).