17-2187 Lucero-Franco v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A206 781 501 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. 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 23rd day of September, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ CARLOS OMAR LUCERO-FRANCO, Petitioner, v. 17-2187 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Jon E. Jessen, Stamford, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: Tracie N. Jones, 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. Petitioner Carlos Omar Lucero-Franco, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a BIA decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Carlos Omar Lucero-Franco, No. A 206 781 501 (B.I.A. Jun. 26, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 781 501 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Apr. 21, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We consider the IJ’s decision as supplemented and modified by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We “review de novo the legal determination of whether a group constitutes a ‘particular social group’” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). We review the denial of CAT relief under the substantial evidence standard. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513, 516 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 I. Withholding of Removal To be eligible for withholding of removal, Lucero-Franco must show that his “life or freedom would be threatened in [Guatemala] because of [his] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 348 (B.I.A. 2010) (requiring above factors be “one central reason” for persecution). Lucero-Franco claims eligibility based on his membership in a “social group” that he defines as the children of wealthy families extorted by gangs. The agency correctly concluded that such a social group is not cognizable under the INA because it lacks the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals