Minagua-Yaucan v. Bondi

Opinion

23-7691 Minagua-Yaucan v. Bondi BIA

Burnham, IJ

A220 999 430/431/432/433

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 21st day of January, 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 FELIX IVAN MINAGUA-YAUCAN, 14 OLGA MARIA VILLA-AULLA, M.J.M-V., 15 E.S.M-V., * 16 Petitioners, 17 18 v. 23-7691 19 NAC 20 PAMELA BONDI, UNITED STATES 21 ATTORNEY GENERAL,

*

We have used only initials to refer to the minor petitioners 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 Respondent. 2 _____________________________________ 3 4 FOR PETITIONERS: Michael Borja, Borja Law Firm, P.C., Jackson 5 Heights, NY. 6 7 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 8 Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant 9 Director; Tracie N. Jones, Trial Attorney; 10 Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil 11 Division, 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 Felix Ivan Minagua-Yaucan, Olga Maria Villa-Aulla, and their 17 minor children, natives and citizens of Ecuador, seek review of an October 12, 18 2023, decision of the BIA affirming a December 12, 2022, decision of an 19 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 20 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Felix Ivan Minagua-Yaucan, 21 et al., Nos. A220 999 430/431/432/433 (B.I.A. Oct. 12, 2023), aff’g Nos. A220 999 22 430/431/432/433 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Dec. 12, 2022). We assume the parties’ 23 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 24 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan

3

1 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). “We review questions of law and 2 application of law to fact de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence.” 3 KC v. Garland, 108 F.4th 130, 134 (2d Cir. 2024). “[T]he administrative findings of 4 fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to 5 conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Petitioners have abandoned 6 their claims by not challenging the dispositive grounds for the agency’s denial of 7 relief. See Debique v. Garland, 58 F.4th 676, 684 (2d Cir. 2023) (“We consider 8 abandoned any claims not adequately presented in an appellant’s brief, and an 9 appellant’s failure to make legal or factual arguments constitutes abandonment.” 10 (quotation marks and citation omitted)). 11 To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, Petitioners 12 had to show past persecution or a fear of future persecution and that a protected 13 ground “was or will be at least one central reason” for the persecution. 8 U.S.C. 14 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see also id. § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b), 1208.16(b); 15 Quituizaca v. Garland, 52 F.4th 103, 109–14 (2d Cir. 2022) (holding that the “one 16 central reason” standard also applies to withholding of removal). “[P]ersecution 17 is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society 18 regards as offensive.” Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir. 2011)

4

1 (quotation marks omitted). The harm must rise above “mere harassment,” 2 Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 433 F.3d 332, 341 (2d Cir. 2006), and 3 generally, “threats of persecution, no matter how credible, do not demonstrate 4 past persecution,” Huo Qiang Chen v. Holder, 773 F.3d 396, 406 (2d Cir. 2014). 5 Absent past persecution, Petitioners had the burden to show an “objectively 6 reasonable” fear of future persecution. Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 7 (2d Cir. 2004). A fear may be well-founded “even if there is only a slight, though 8 discernible, chance of persecution.” Diallo v. I.N.S., 232 F.3d 279, 284 (2d Cir. 2000). 9 But absent “solid support in the record” a “fear is speculative at best.” Jian Xing 10 Huang v. U.S. I.N.S., 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005). And for CAT relief, 11 Petitioners had to establish they would “more likely than not” be tortured “by, or 12 at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official acting 13 in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. 14 §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). 15 Petitioners’ brief does not meaningfully challenge the agency’s findings that 16 the discrimination and abuse Minagua-Yaucan and Villa-Aulla suffered on 17 account of their race did not rise to the level of persecution, that Minagua-Yaucan’s 18 abuse by a gang was not on account of a protected ground, that the country

5

1 conditions evidence did not demonstrate a pattern or practice of persecution of 2 indigenous people, and that Minagua-Yaucan did not show that gang members 3 had a continued interest in targeting him for persecution or torture. Accordingly, 4 Petitioners have abandoned challenges to dispositive grounds for the agency’s 5 denial of relief. See Debique, 58 F.4th at 684. 6 The brief consists of conclusory statements without citation to legal 7 authority or factual support in the record. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8) (requiring that 8 an appellant’s brief contain arguments “with citations to the authorities and parts 9 of the record on which the appellant relies”); see Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 10 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding a petitioner’s “single conclusory sentence” 11 insufficient to raise an argument). Moreover, the brief misstates the facts and law, 12 such as erroneously stating that asylum was denied as time-barred, and it uses 13 language identical to that in other briefs filed by counsel Michael Borja to make 14 unsupported factual allegations that misconstrue the record in this case, e.g., by 15 erroneously stating that the record shows that Petitioners were “savagely beaten 16 multiple times” or that “the government did nothing but exacerbate the issue.” 17 Finally, counsel raises arguments that we have rejected in some of his prior 18 cases. He erroneously argues that the nexus requirement for withholding is less

6

1 stringent than that for asylum. See, e.g., Acero-Guaman v. Garland, No. 21-6606, 2024 2 WL 1734054, at *1 (2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2024) (summary order); Guerrero-Andachz v. 3 Bondi, No. 23-7943, 2025 WL 2810831, at *1 n.2 (2d Cir. Sept. 30, 2025) (summary 4 order). As explained above, this is a misstatement of law. See Quituizaca, 52 F.4th 5 at 109–14. He additionally reiterates an unsupported argument that “the 6 Ecuadorian government does not have to acquiesce, or condone” torture. See, e.g., 7 Aucacama-Azogue v. Bondi, No. 23-7165, 2025 WL 2078445, at *3 (2d Cir. July 24, 8 2025) (summary order); Ortega-Garcia v. Bondi, No. 23-7162, 2025 WL 2504616, at 9 *2 (2d Cir. Sept. 2, 2025) (summary order). 10 Given the defects in briefing by petitioners’ counsel, Michael Borja, a copy 11 of this order will be forwarded to the Grievance Panel. 12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending 13 motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

14 FOR THE COURT: 15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 16 Clerk of Court