Opinion
20-916 NAC
03-10-2022
SILVIA AZUCENA MEJIA, FERNANDO ALEXIS MEJIA, Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
FOR PETITIONERS: H. Raymond Fasano, Esq., Youman, Madeo & Fasano, LLP, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Nancy E. Friedman, Justin R. Markel, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
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.
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 10th day of March, two thousand twenty-two.
FOR PETITIONERS: H. Raymond Fasano, Esq., Youman, Madeo & Fasano, LLP, New York, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Nancy E. Friedman, Justin R. Markel, 1
Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., BETH ROBINSON, Clrcult Judges.
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 Silvia Azucena Mejia and Fernando Alexis Mejia, natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a February 18, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming a March 30, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Silvia Azucena Mejia, Fernando Alexis Mejia, Nos. A208 883 152/153 (B.I.A. Feb. 18, 2020), aff'g Nos. A208 883 152/153 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 30, 2018). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
We have reviewed both the IJ's and the BIA's opinions. See Wangchuck v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014).
An applicant for asylum must establish past persecution 2 or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of "race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a), (b). Petitioners do not challenge the agency's findings that, even assuming credibility, they failed to establish past persecution and a well-founded fear of persecution. Those unchallenged findings constitute a sufficient basis for the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, and are dispositive of the petition for review. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (concluding that claims not raised in a brief are abandoned and will not be considered); see also Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2010) (failure to show fear of persecution required for asylum "necessarily" precludes meeting higher burden for withholding of removal and CAT relief). Accordingly, we need not reach the agency's alternative credibility and nexus findings. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach."). In any event, the agency's past persecution and well- 3 founded fear findings were not in error. "[P]ersecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive," Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted); and "threats of persecution, no matter how credible, do not demonstrate past persecution," Huo Qiang Chen v. Holder, 773 F.3d 396, 406 (2d Cir. 2014). Further, Petitioners did not allege any threats after 2015 and testified that similarly situated individuals remain unharmed in El Salvador. See Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125, 129 (2d Cir. 2005) ("In the absence of solid support in the record . . . [an applicant's] fear is speculative at best"); Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 313 (2d Cir. 1999) (finding a fear of future persecution weakened when similarly situated family members remain unharmed in petitioner's native country).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED. 4