Vasquez-Vasquez v. Garland ( 2022 )

20-1307
Vasquez-Vasquez v. Garland
BIA
Ruehle, IJ
A206 361 569/570
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 23rd day of June, two thousand twenty-two.
PRESENT:
JON O. NEWMAN,
JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
SONIA DIANETH VASQUEZ-VASQUEZ,
ELBER EDELFO VASQUEZ-VASQUEZ,
Petitioners,
v. 20-1307
NAC
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
FOR PETITIONERS: Jose Perez, Esq., Syracuse, NY.
FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant
Attorney General; Sabatino F. Leo,
Assistant Director; Shahrzad
Baghai, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that this petition for review of a decision of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) is DENIED.
Petitioners Sonia Dianeth Vasquez-Vasquez and Elber
Edelfo Vasquez-Vasquez, natives and citizens of Guatemala,
seek review of a March 19, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming
a January 8, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Sonia Dianeth
Vasquez-Vasquez, Elber Edelfo Vasquez-Vasquez, Nos. A206 361
569/570 (B.I.A. Mar. 19, 2020), aff’g Nos. A206 361 569/570
(Immig. Ct. Buffalo Jan. 8, 2018). We assume the parties’
familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, reaching only the
claims exhausted before the BIA and the grounds for denying
those claims that the BIA relied on, i.e., the untimeliness
of the asylum application and the failure to sufficiently
2
corroborate the domestic violence claim. See Xue Hong Yang
v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005);
see also Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104,
122 (2d Cir. 2007).
We deny the petition because the Petitioners have
abandoned any challenge to the grounds on which the BIA relied
in denying relief by failing to argue those grounds in their
brief. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir.
2008); Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545
n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). Instead of challenging the reasons the
BIA gave, Petitioners argue that Sonia demonstrated that the
Guatemalan government is unable to protect domestic violence
victims. We decline to address that issue because the agency
did not address it, and instead relied on the fact that Sonia
did not corroborate that she suffered such violence. See Lin
Zhong, 480 F.3d at 122; see also 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.”).
Even if Petitioners had contested the corroboration
finding that the BIA made—that Sonia did not corroborate that
she was a domestic violence victim—that finding was
3
reasonable, given her failure to submit her medical records
(to substantiate alleged domestic violence) and Elber’s birth
certificate (to establish a relationship to the alleged
abuser). The agency did not err in concluding that Sonia’s
explanation for why she did not provide this evidence—i.e.,
that she left the birth certificate at home and was never
asked to provide medical records—failed to establish that the
evidence was unavailable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (“No
court shall reverse a determination made by a trier of fact
with respect to the availability of corroborating evidence,
. . . unless . . . a reasonable trier of fact is compelled to
conclude that such corroborating evidence is unavailable.”);
Wei Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23, 30–31 (2d Cir. 2018)
(holding that “alien bears the ultimate burden of introducing
. . . evidence without prompting from the IJ”).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
stays VACATED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
Clerk of Court
4