Murillo Martinez v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• Decided: July 9, 2024
• Docket: 22-6086
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

22-6086 Murillo Martinez v. Garland BIA Navarro, IJ A208 284 708

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 9th day of July, two thousand twenty- 4 four. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 MICHAEL H. PARK, 9 MYRNA PÉREZ, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JANNA ZARETH MURILLO 14 MARTINEZ, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 22-6086 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua Bardavid, Esq., New York, NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 2 Attorney General; Sheri R. Glaser, Senior 3 Litigation Counsel; Andrew B. Insenga, Trial 4 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 5 United States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC.

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

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

9 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

10 Petitioner Janna Zareth Murillo Martinez, a native and citizen of Honduras,

11 seeks review of a February 3, 2022, decision of the BIA affirming a November 1,

12 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum

13 and withholding of removal. 1 In re Janna Zareth Murillo Martinez, No. A208 284

14 708 (B.I.A. Feb. 3, 2022), aff’g No. A208 284 708 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Nov. 1, 2018).

15 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural

16 history.

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

18 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review factual findings for

19 substantial evidence and questions of law and application of law to fact de novo.

1Murillo Martinez does not challenge the BIA’s determination that she waived her claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture. 2 1 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). “[T]he administrative

2 findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be

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

4 An asylum applicant has the burden to establish past persecution or a well-

5 founded fear of future persecution, and that “race, religion, nationality,

6 membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least

7 one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see

8 also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a), (b). Murillo Martinez does not challenge the IJ’s finding

9 that she did not suffer past persecution, nor does she challenge the BIA’s

10 determination that she waived that issue on appeal to the BIA. The issue of past

11 persecution is thus not before us. See Debique v. Garland, 58 F.4th 676, 684 (2d Cir.

12 2023) (“[W]e normally decide only questions presented by the parties.” (quotation

13 marks omitted)).

14 Murillo Martinez has also abandoned any challenge to the agency’s

15 determination that she failed to establish a well-founded fear of future

16 persecution. “We consider abandoned any claims not adequately presented in an

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

18 constitutes abandonment.” Debique, 58 F.4th at 684 (quotation marks omitted).

3 1 Murillo Martinez’s brief includes a heading that she “has a well-founded fear of

2 future persecution,” and goes on to state the requirements for establishing such

3 fear, but she focuses on a nexus to a protected ground, without clearly addressing

4 how or why the IJ and BIA erred in concluding that she had not established an

5 objectively reasonable fear of future harm. See Debique, 58 F.4th at 684. This

6 failure to “state the issue and advance an argument” constitutes abandonment.

7 Gross v. Rell, 585 F.3d 72, 95 (2d Cir. 2009). This abandonment is dispositive as to

8 both asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b), 1208.16(b);

9 Pinel-Gomez v. Garland, 52 F.4th 523, 528 (2d Cir. 2022) (“Because the ‘clear

10 probability’ standard for statutory withholding of removal is more demanding

11 than the ‘well-founded fear’ standard for asylum, an applicant who fails to

12 establish eligibility for asylum fails to establish eligibility for withholding of

13 removal.” (cleaned up)).

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

15 motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

16 FOR THE COURT: 17 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 18 Clerk of Court