Fuentes-Romero v. Holder , 561 F. App'x 28 ( 2014 )

13-20
Fuentes-Romero v. Holder
BIA
Nelson, I.J.
A089 096 299
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
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 31st day of March, two thousand fourteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
8 Chief Judge,
9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
10 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 JOHANNA LISBETH FUENTES-ROMERO,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 13-20
18 NAC
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
20 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Andrew P. Johnson, New York, New
25 York.
26
27 FOR RESPONDENT: Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
28 General; Jennifer Williams, Senior
29 Litigation Counsel; Lance L. Jolley,
1 Trial Attorney, Civil Division,
2 Office of Immigration Litigation,
3 United States Department of Justice,
4 Washington, D.C.
5
6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
7 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is
8 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for
9 review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
10 Johanna Lisbeth Fuentes-Romero, a native and citizen of
11 El Salvador, seeks review of a December 13, 2012, order of
12 the BIA affirming the October 26, 2011, decision of an
13 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum,
14 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
15 Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Johanna Lisbeth Fuentes-
16 Romero, No. A089 096 299 (B.I.A. Dec. 13, 2012), aff’g No.
17 A089 096 299 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 26, 2011). We
18 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
19 and procedural history of this case.
20 We review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA.
21 See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005).
22 The applicable standards of review are well established.
23 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562
24 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
25
2
1 First, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review
2 the agency’s pretermission of Fuentes-Romero’s asylum
3 application as untimely, as Fuentes-Romero presents no
4 constitutional claims or questions of law. See 8 U.S.C.
5 §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D). To the extent Fuentes-Romero
6 attempts to raise any constitutional claims or questions of
7 law, she failed to exhaust such claims before the agency.
8 See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 124
9 (2d Cir. 2007). We therefore dismiss the petition to the
10 extent that it challenges the pretermission of her asylum
11 claim.
12 Second, we discern no error in the agency’s finding
13 that Fuentes-Romero failed to show that she belongs to a
14 particular social group, as required to establish
15 eligibility for withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
16 § 1231(b)(3). The agency properly rejected Fuentes-Romero’s
17 proposed social group of persons with parents in the United
18 States who are perceived to have money, as wealth or
19 perceived wealth is not a cognizable social group.
20 Ucelo–Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70, 73-74 (2d Cir. 2007).
21 Fuentes-Romero did not argue before the agency that she
22 belongs to the social group “women without male protection,”
3
1 and we decline to reach that unexhausted claim. Lin Zhong,
2 480 F.3d at 124.
3 Finally, Fuentes-Romero did not demonstrate that she
4 was eligible for CAT relief, as she failed to provide
5 particularized evidence establishing that she would be
6 tortured with government acquiescence if returned to El
7 Salvador. See Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432
8 F.3d 156, 160 (2d Cir. 2005).
9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
10 DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
11 FOR THE COURT:
12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
13
14
4