NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0166n.06
No. 19-3820
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Mar 23, 2020 GLENY LLESENIA LINO-SABIO; GLENY ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ROSARIO SUASO-LINO; ASHLEY ) YARELI SUASO-LINO, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW Petitioners, ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION v. ) APPEALS ) WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) ) Respondent. )
BEFORE: GUY, THAPAR, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Gleny Llesenia Lino-Sabio and her two minor children petition this court
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirming the denial
of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). As set forth below, we DENY the petition for review.
Lino-Sabio and her two minor children, natives and citizens of Honduras, entered the
United States without inspection in July 2016. Shortly after their entry, the Department of
Homeland Security served Lino-Sabio and her children with notices to appear in removal
proceedings, charging them with removability as immigrants who, at the time of application for
admission, were not in possession of valid entry documents. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I),
1227(a)(1)(A). Lino-Sabio appeared before an immigration judge (IJ) and conceded removability
as charged. No. 19-3820, Lino-Sabio v. Barr
Lino-Sabio filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection
and included her children as derivative beneficiaries. Lino-Sabio asserted her fear of members of
the Mara 18 gang in Honduras and based her claims for asylum and withholding of removal on her
race, Garifuna, and on her membership in an alleged particular social group, the family of Cesar
Suazo. At the hearing on her application, Lino-Sabio testified that Cesar Suazo, her husband’s
nephew, was taken off a bus and killed by gang members in September 2013. Two years later, in
October 2015, two gang members came to Lino-Sabio’s house and asked her for money. When
Lino-Sabio did not understand the gang members because they were speaking Spanish and she
speaks Garifuna, the gang members hit her on her leg. Lino-Sabio testified that she fled with her
children to her mother’s house in another area of Honduras, where they stayed for about three
months. While Lino-Sabio was staying with her mother, gang members there asked her for money
and threatened to “kill me like they killed my nephew” if she did not pay. Lino-Sabio testified
that she is afraid that, if she returns to Honduras, gang members will kill her and her children.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the IJ denied Lino-Sabio’s application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT protection. With respect to her asylum claim, the IJ found that
Lino-Sabio had failed to demonstrate that the gang members targeted her on account of her
Garifuna race or her family connection to Cesar Suazo and that she was more likely “a victim of a
criminal enterprise for financial gain.” Because she had failed to satisfy the lower burden of proof
for asylum, the IJ determined, Lino-Sabio had necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent
standard for withholding of removal. As for her claim for CAT protection, the IJ found that Lino-
Sabio had failed to demonstrate that the gang members were acting in any official capacity or that
the Honduran government approved of or tolerated torture. The IJ concluded that Lino-Sabio’s
evidence fell short of demonstrating that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if
removed to Honduras. The IJ ordered that Lino-Sabio and her children be removed to Honduras.
-2- No. 19-3820, Lino-Sabio v. Barr
Lino-Sabio appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA but did not file a brief. The BIA affirmed
the IJ’s decision without opinion under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4). This timely petition for review
followed.
Lino-Sabio first argues that the BIA’s streamlining procedure, which provides for summary
affirmance of the IJ’s decision without opinion, violates due process. This argument is foreclosed
by our decision in Denko v. INS, 351 F.3d 717, 729-30 (6th Cir. 2003), holding that the BIA’s
streamlining procedure does not violate a petitioner’s due process rights. Citing SEC v. Chenery
Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196-97 (1947), Lino-Sabio next asserts that, when an administrative action
is subject to judicial review, the agency must provide a reasoned basis for its decision. But this
argument “fails because the IJ’s opinion becomes the reasoned explanation needed for review.”
Denko, 351 F.3d at 729. Lino-Sabio further asserts that the BIA’s order does not indicate how her
case met the criteria for summary affirmance under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4). However, “‘it makes
no practical difference whether the BIA properly or improperly streamlined review of [Lino-
Sabio’s] case,’ because when ‘we review directly the decision of the IJ when a case comes to us
from the BIA pursuant to [8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)], our ability to conduct a full and fair appraisal
of [her] case is not compromised.’” Denko, 351 F.3d at 732 (quoting Georgis v. Ashcroft, 328
F.3d 962, 967 (7th Cir. 2003)). The BIA’s streamlining procedure did not violate Lino-Sabio’s
due process rights or administrative law principles.
Lino-Sabio next challenges the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT protection. Where, as here, “the BIA affirms the IJ without issuing its own
opinion, we review the IJ’s opinion.” Ndrecaj v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 667, 672 (6th Cir. 2008)
(citing Denko, F.3d at 723). We review the agency’s factual determinations for substantial
evidence, reversing only if “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
-3- No. 19-3820, Lino-Sabio v. Barr
contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Bi Qing Zheng v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 287, 293-94 (6th Cir.
2016).
Lino-Sabio, as an applicant for asylum, must demonstrate “that she meets the definition of
a ‘refugee,’ which means a person who is unable or unwilling to return to her home country
because of past persecution or a ‘well-founded fear’ of future persecution ‘on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” Bonilla-
Morales v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1132, 1136 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)). Lino-
Sabio must establish that a protected ground “was or will be at least one central reason for
persecuting” her.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0166n.06
No. 19-3820
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Mar 23, 2020 GLENY LLESENIA LINO-SABIO; GLENY ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ROSARIO SUASO-LINO; ASHLEY ) YARELI SUASO-LINO, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW Petitioners, ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION v. ) APPEALS ) WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) ) Respondent. )
BEFORE: GUY, THAPAR, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Gleny Llesenia Lino-Sabio and her two minor children petition this court
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirming the denial
of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). As set forth below, we DENY the petition for review.
Lino-Sabio and her two minor children, natives and citizens of Honduras, entered the
United States without inspection in July 2016. Shortly after their entry, the Department of
Homeland Security served Lino-Sabio and her children with notices to appear in removal
proceedings, charging them with removability as immigrants who, at the time of application for
admission, were not in possession of valid entry documents. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I),
1227(a)(1)(A). Lino-Sabio appeared before an immigration judge (IJ) and conceded removability
as charged. No. 19-3820, Lino-Sabio v. Barr
Lino-Sabio filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection
and included her children as derivative beneficiaries. Lino-Sabio asserted her fear of members of
the Mara 18 gang in Honduras and based her claims for asylum and withholding of removal on her
race, Garifuna, and on her membership in an alleged particular social group, the family of Cesar
Suazo. At the hearing on her application, Lino-Sabio testified that Cesar Suazo, her husband’s
nephew, was taken off a bus and killed by gang members in September 2013. Two years later, in
October 2015, two gang members came to Lino-Sabio’s house and asked her for money. When
Lino-Sabio did not understand the gang members because they were speaking Spanish and she
speaks Garifuna, the gang members hit her on her leg. Lino-Sabio testified that she fled with her
children to her mother’s house in another area of Honduras, where they stayed for about three
months. While Lino-Sabio was staying with her mother, gang members there asked her for money
and threatened to “kill me like they killed my nephew” if she did not pay. Lino-Sabio testified
that she is afraid that, if she returns to Honduras, gang members will kill her and her children.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the IJ denied Lino-Sabio’s application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT protection. With respect to her asylum claim, the IJ found that
Lino-Sabio had failed to demonstrate that the gang members targeted her on account of her
Garifuna race or her family connection to Cesar Suazo and that she was more likely “a victim of a
criminal enterprise for financial gain.” Because she had failed to satisfy the lower burden of proof
for asylum, the IJ determined, Lino-Sabio had necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent
standard for withholding of removal. As for her claim for CAT protection, the IJ found that Lino-
Sabio had failed to demonstrate that the gang members were acting in any official capacity or that
the Honduran government approved of or tolerated torture. The IJ concluded that Lino-Sabio’s
evidence fell short of demonstrating that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured if
removed to Honduras. The IJ ordered that Lino-Sabio and her children be removed to Honduras.
-2- No. 19-3820, Lino-Sabio v. Barr
Lino-Sabio appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA but did not file a brief. The BIA affirmed
the IJ’s decision without opinion under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4). This timely petition for review
followed.
Lino-Sabio first argues that the BIA’s streamlining procedure, which provides for summary
affirmance of the IJ’s decision without opinion, violates due process. This argument is foreclosed
by our decision in Denko v. INS, 351 F.3d 717, 729-30 (6th Cir. 2003), holding that the BIA’s
streamlining procedure does not violate a petitioner’s due process rights. Citing SEC v. Chenery
Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196-97 (1947), Lino-Sabio next asserts that, when an administrative action
is subject to judicial review, the agency must provide a reasoned basis for its decision. But this
argument “fails because the IJ’s opinion becomes the reasoned explanation needed for review.”
Denko, 351 F.3d at 729. Lino-Sabio further asserts that the BIA’s order does not indicate how her
case met the criteria for summary affirmance under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4). However, “‘it makes
no practical difference whether the BIA properly or improperly streamlined review of [Lino-
Sabio’s] case,’ because when ‘we review directly the decision of the IJ when a case comes to us
from the BIA pursuant to [8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4)], our ability to conduct a full and fair appraisal
of [her] case is not compromised.’” Denko, 351 F.3d at 732 (quoting Georgis v. Ashcroft, 328
F.3d 962, 967 (7th Cir. 2003)). The BIA’s streamlining procedure did not violate Lino-Sabio’s
due process rights or administrative law principles.
Lino-Sabio next challenges the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT protection. Where, as here, “the BIA affirms the IJ without issuing its own
opinion, we review the IJ’s opinion.” Ndrecaj v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 667, 672 (6th Cir. 2008)
(citing Denko, F.3d at 723). We review the agency’s factual determinations for substantial
evidence, reversing only if “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
-3- No. 19-3820, Lino-Sabio v. Barr
contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Bi Qing Zheng v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 287, 293-94 (6th Cir.
2016).
Lino-Sabio, as an applicant for asylum, must demonstrate “that she meets the definition of
a ‘refugee,’ which means a person who is unable or unwilling to return to her home country
because of past persecution or a ‘well-founded fear’ of future persecution ‘on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” Bonilla-
Morales v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1132, 1136 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)). Lino-
Sabio must establish that a protected ground “was or will be at least one central reason for
persecuting” her. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). According to Lino-Sabio, the IJ erred in concluding
that she had failed to demonstrate a nexus between any persecution and a protected ground.
First, as to race, the IJ determined that the evidence did not support Lino-Sabio’s claim that
she was approached by members of the Mara 18 gang because she is Garifuna. Lino-Sabio
presented evidence that Garifuna people face discrimination in Honduras but presented no
evidence that gang members target Garifuna people in particular or targeted her because she is
Garifuna. When asked why she was singled out by gang members asking for money, Lino-Sabio
responded, “I don’t know.” Although Lino-Sabio testified that the gang members hit her when
she could not understand them because they were speaking Spanish, this evidence does not compel
the finding that the gang members harmed her because she is Garifuna.
Next, as to membership in a particular social group, the IJ found that it was “illogical and
implausible” that Lino-Sabio was targeted on account of her family connection to Cesar Suazo.
Lino-Sabio testified that members of Cesar Suazo’s family still live in Honduras, but she was
unable to identify any other family members who have been harmed by gang members. See
Bonilla-Morales, 607 F.3d at 1138 (denying petition for review involving family-based particular
social group for lack of nexus and noting “the record is devoid of any evidence that [the
-4- No. 19-3820, Lino-Sabio v. Barr
petitioner’s] sons have suffered any mistreatment by the gang since [the petitioner] left the
country”).
In support of her petition for review, Lino-Sabio asserts that her testimony should be
deemed credible and that her testimony could lead to the conclusion that her feared harm is on
account of her Garifuna race and her membership in Cesar Suazo’s family. But Lino-Sabio fails
to point to any evidence that compels that conclusion. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s
findings that Lino-Sabio had failed to demonstrate a nexus to a protected ground and that she was
more likely “a victim of a criminal enterprise for financial gain.” By failing to establish her
eligibility for asylum, Lino-Sabio necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for
withholding of removal. See Lin v. Holder, 565 F.3d 971, 979 (6th Cir. 2009).
Unlike a claim for asylum or withholding of removal, a claim for CAT protection does not
require a nexus to a protected ground. See Mapouya v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 396, 414 (6th Cir.
2007). To be eligible for CAT protection, Lino-Sabio must demonstrate that it is more likely than
not that, if she is removed to Honduras, she will suffer torture “inflicted by or at the instigation of
or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official
capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1); see id. § 1208.16(c)(2).
Lino-Sabio asserts that the evidence demonstrates that she will be subject to torture by gang
members with the acquiescence of the Honduran government because the police and other public
officials do not help Garifuna people. Lino-Sabio did not present any evidence that public officials
were involved or acquiesced in her extortion by gang members, instead testifying that she did not
report the gang members to the police because she believes that the police work with the gangs.
The 2016 Human Rights Report for Honduras submitted by Lino-Sabio indicates that the
government has made efforts to reduce the pervasive societal violence and political corruption in
the country and has taken steps to investigate and arrest perpetrators of violence against members
-5- No. 19-3820, Lino-Sabio v. Barr
of indigenous groups such as the Garifuna people. This evidence undermines Lino-Sabio’s claim
that the government would acquiesce in any torture if she returns to Honduras. See Zaldana
Menijar v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 491, 502 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding that the government’s alleged
inability “to control the gangs does not constitute acquiescence”); Rreshpja v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d
551, 557 (6th Cir. 2005). The record does not compel the conclusion that Lino-Sabio would more
likely than not be tortured with the acquiescence of the Honduran government.
For these reasons, we DENY Lino-Sabio’s petition for review.
-6-