Montano Cali v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: February 20, 2026
• Docket: 24-229
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

24-229 Montano Cali v. Bondi BIA Reid, IJ A220 956 022/023/024

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.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 20th day of February, two thousand twenty-six.

PRESENT: SUSAN L. CARNEY, MICHAEL H. PARK, ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________

JUAN AGUSTIN MONTANO CALI, GABRIELA BEATRIZ ORELLANA SALTO, JORGE ANTONIO MONTANO ORELLANA, Petitioners,

v. 24-229 NAC PAMELA BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Michael Borja, Esq., Borja Law Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY.

FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Andrew N. O’Malley, Senior Litigation Counsel; Sunah Lee, Senior Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

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

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

DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

Petitioners Juan Agustin Montano Cali, Gabriela Beatriz Orellana Salto, and

their minor child, natives and citizens of Ecuador, seek review of a December 26,

2023, decision of the BIA affirming an August 23, 2022, decision of an Immigration

Judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Juan Agustin Montano

Cali, et al., Nos. A220 956 022/023/024 (B.I.A. Dec. 26, 2023), aff’g Nos. A220 956

022/023/024 (Immigr. N.Y. City Aug. 23, 2022). We assume the parties’ familiarity

with the underlying facts and procedural history.

We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the

findings the BIA did not reach. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d

2 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial

evidence and questions of law de novo. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510,

513 (2d Cir. 2009). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless

any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

“We consider abandoned any claims not adequately presented in an

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

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

(quotation marks omitted); see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (providing that “the

argument” in an appellant’s brief “must contain . . . appellant’s contentions and

the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on

which the appellant relies”). Petitioners’ brief restates their claims for asylum

and withholding of removal without identifying legal or factual errors in the

agency’s decisions or citing the record. They also argue—without support and

contrary to the agency’s regulations—that the agency applied an incorrect

standard for CAT relief. Thus, they have abandoned review of all forms of relief.

See Debique, 58 F.4th at 684–85 (finding petitioner abandoned any arguments by

failing to “state the issue and advance an argument”); see also, e.g., Aucacama-Azogue

3 v. Bondi, No. 23-7165, 2025 WL 2078445, at *3 (2d Cir. July 24, 2025) (summary

order) (noting that Petitioners’ attorney, Mr. Borja, has repeatedly argued,

“contrary to the language of the regulations, that the agency erred in requiring

government involvement or acquiescence to state a CAT claim”).

Even deeming Petitioners’ conclusory statements sufficient to challenge the

agency’s denial of asylum and withholding, the agency did not err. An applicant

for asylum and withholding of removal has the burden to demonstrate past

persecution or a well-founded fear (asylum) or likelihood (withholding) of future

persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular

social group, or political opinion” inflicted by either the government or by private

parties that the government is “unable or unwilling to control.” Pan v. Holder, 777

F.3d 540, 543 (2d Cir. 2015) (quotation marks omitted); see also 8 U.S.C.

§§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A). “A protected ground cannot be

incidental or tangential to another reason for harm.” Quituizaca v. Garland, 52

F.4th 103, 114–15 (2d Cir. 2022) (quotation marks omitted). The agency was not

compelled to conclude that the female petitioner’s indigenous ethnicity was one

central reason she and her husband were targeted because the circumstances

4 suggested that gang members were motivated by criminal incentives of robbery

and retaliation for reporting them to the police. See id.

A copy of this order will be forwarded to this Court’s Grievance Panel. As

explained above, Petitioners’ counsel, Michael Borja, fails to sufficiently address

dispositive issues in the brief. Further, the brief makes factual allegations that are

not supported by the record, such as asserting that Petitioners were assaulted

multiple times. Counsel also argues that CAT relief does not require

acquiescence, which is an argument he has made in other cases and which we have

repeatedly rejected as unsupported and insufficiently argued. See, e.g., Sinchi-

Montalvan v. Garland, No. 22-6400, 2024 WL 4690813, at *2 (2d Cir. Nov. 6, 2024)

(summary order); Guerrero-Andachz v. Bondi, No. 23-7943, 2025 WL 2810831, at *2

n.5 (2d Cir. Sept. 30, 2025) (summary order).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. A copy of

this order will be forwarded to this Court’s Grievance Panel. All pending

motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

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