Ruiz-Hernandez v. Barr
This text of Ruiz-Hernandez v. Barr (Ruiz-Hernandez v. Barr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
17-2298 Ruiz-Hernandez v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A206 714 879 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 TO 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 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 20th day of February, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ILEANA MELISSA RUIZ-HERNANDEZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-2298 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jon E. Jessen, Law Offices Jon E. 24 Jessen LLC, Stamford, CT. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Jesse 29 Lloyd Busen, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of 32 Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
4 is DENIED.
5 Petitioner Ileana Melissa Ruiz-Hernandez, a native and
6 citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a June 26, 2017, decision
7 of the BIA affirming a December 15, 2016, decision of an
8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ruiz-Hernandez’s application
9 for asylum and withholding of removal. In re Ileana Melissa
10 Ruiz-Hernandez, No. A 206 714 879 (B.I.A. June 26, 2017),
11 aff’g No. A 206 714 879 (Immig. Ct. Hartford, CT Dec. 15,
12 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
13 underlying facts and procedural history.
14 Under the circumstances of this case, where the BIA’s
15 opinion closely tracks the IJ’s reasoning, we have reviewed
16 both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions. See Zaman v. Mukasey,
17 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards
18 of review are well established: the Court reviews factual
19 findings for substantial evidence and legal issues de novo.
20 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d
21 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
2 1 To obtain asylum or withholding of removal, Ruiz-
2 Hernandez was required to establish that “race, religion,
3 nationality, membership in a particular social group, or
4 political opinion was or will be at least one central
5 reason for” the claimed persecution. 8 U.S.C. §§
6 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (asylum), 1231(b)(3)(A) (withholding);
7 Matter of C-T-L, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 346 (B.I.A. 2010)
8 (holding that the “one central reason” standard also
9 applies to withholding of removal). Ruiz-Hernandez asserts
10 that she was persecuted on account of her membership in the
11 social group of defenseless, Honduran women. To constitute
12 a particular social group, a group must be “(1) composed of
13 members who share a common immutable characteristic,
14 (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct
15 within the society in question.” Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I.
16 & N. Dec. 227, 237 (B.I.A. 2014); see Paloka v. Holder, 762
17 F.3d 191, 195–97 (2d Cir. 2014). An “immutable
18 characteristic” is one that members of the group “either
19 cannot change, or should not be required to change because
20 it is fundamental to their individual identities or
21 consciences.” Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70, 72-73
3 1 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2 “Particularity refers to whether the group is sufficiently
3 distinct that it would constitute a discrete class of
4 persons.” Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 210
5 (B.I.A. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). “To be
6 socially distinct, a group . . . must be perceived as a
7 group by society.” Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at
8 240.
9 We review for substantial evidence whether an applicant
10 was targeted on account of group membership, see Edimo-
11 Doualla v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 276, 282 (2d Cir. 2006), but
12 review the agency’s determination of whether a group is
13 cognizable de novo, see Paloka, 762 F.3d at 195. We find no
14 error in the agency’s conclusion that Ruiz-Hernandez’s
15 proposed social group of defenseless, Honduran women is not
16 cognizable, or in its determination that she was not targeted
17 based on her membership in that proposed social group.
18 In an analogous context, we have agreed with the BIA’s
19 determination that a group based on wealth is not sufficiently
20 particular: “When the harm visited upon members of a group is
21 attributable to the incentives presented to ordinary
4 1 criminals rather than to persecution, the scales are tipped
2 away from considering those people a ‘particular social
3 group’ within the meaning of the INA.” Ucelo-Gomez, 509 F.3d
4 at 73. Such is the case here. Ruiz-Hernandez argues that
5 her group is distinguished based on gender, claiming that the
6 agency “failed [to] consider the social distinction and
7 particularity of women victims when compared to that of male
8 victims of gang violence,” but she does not establish that
9 the characteristic of being a “defenseless woman” has a
10 “commonly accepted definition[]” in Honduran society such
11 that the social group has a “definable boundar[y].” Matter
12 of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 214. We thus perceive no error
13 in the agency’s determination that a social group of
14 defenseless, Honduran women was not cognizable. See Paloka,
15 762 F.3d at 195–96.
16 In addition, even if such a group were cognizable, Ruiz-
17 Hernandez did not demonstrate that criminals targeted her on
18 account of her membership in that group, as opposed to
19 ordinary criminal motives. Her written statement explained
20 that she fled Honduras “because of the high crime there,”
21 that she was a victim of several assaults, and that the area
5 1 where she worked was gang-infested. And her testimony was
2 that her family members and neighbors had also been crime
3 victims and that her assailants never told her why she had
4 been targeted. This testimony was significant; it
5 demonstrated that the criminality she feared was
6 indiscriminate and not related to her social group. Although
7 Ruiz-Hernandez’s country-conditions evidence established
8 that Honduras has persistent problems with violence,
9 extortion, and police corruption, it did not demonstrate that
10 women, particularly defenseless women, are targeted by
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ruiz-Hernandez v. Barr, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruiz-hernandez-v-barr-ca2-2020.