Mendoza v. Blanche

24-1095 Ortiz-Mendoza v. Blanche BIA Christensen, IJ A208 540 065 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 22nd day of October, two thousand 4 twenty-six. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 9 SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ARELI YESSENIA ORTIZ-MENDOZA, * 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 24-1095 17 NAC *The Clerk’s Office is directed to amend the caption as reflected above so that the petitioner’s name is consistent with the notice to appear and her birth certificate.  1 TODD BLANCHE, UNITED STATES 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 3 Respondent. 4 _____________________________________ 5 6 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno J. Bembi, Hempstead, New York. 7 8 FOR RESPONDENT: Brett Shumate, Acting Assistant Attorney 9 General; Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director; 10 Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Trial Attorney, 11 Office of Immigration Litigation, United 12 States Department of Justice, Washington, 13 DC. 14 15 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 16 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 17 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 18 Petitioner Areli Yessenia Ortiz-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Honduras, 19 seeks review of an April 3, 2024 decision of the BIA, affirming an October 3, 2019 20 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied her application for asylum, 21 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 22 (“CAT”). In re Areli Yessenia Ortiz-Mendoza, No. A208 540 065 (B.I.A. Apr. 3, 2024); 23 aff’g No. A208 540 065 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 3, 2019). We assume the parties’ 24 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 25 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented and modified by the 2 1 BIA. See Al Saidi v. Blanche, 185 F.4th 286, 296 (2d Cir. 2026). We review the 2 agency’s factual findings and the application of law to fact under the substantial 3 evidence standard, deferring to the administrative findings of fact “unless any 4 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. at 5 296–97 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). We deny the petition in its entirety as 6 Petitioner has abandoned review of dispositive issues. “We consider abandoned 7 any claims not adequately presented in an appellant’s brief, and an appellant’s 8 failure to make legal or factual arguments constitutes abandonment.” Debique v. 9 Garland, 58 F.4th 676, 684 (2d Cir. 2023) (quotation marks omitted). 10 An applicant for asylum and withholding of removal must establish that 11 “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political 12 opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” 13 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (asylum), 1231(b)(3)(A) (withholding); see also 8 C.F.R. 14 §§ 1208.13(b), 1208.16(b); Quituizaca v. Garland, 52 F.4th 103, 108–14 (2d Cir. 2022) 15 (holding the “one central reason” standard extends to withholding). An applicant, 16 like Ortiz-Mendoza, who seeks asylum based on membership in a proposed 17 particular social group must show both (1) a cognizable group and (2) that the 18 “alleged persecutors targeted [her] on account of her membership in that group.” 3 1 Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). 2 Here, the IJ concluded both that Ortiz-Mendoza’s proposed social group, 3 women who are unable to leave an abusive relationship and for whom the police 4 do not provide any protection, was not cognizable and that she did not establish a 5 nexus between the alleged harm and her membership in the group. However, the 6 BIA affirmed the decision on nexus alone. Ortiz-Mendoza’s brief here includes 7 only conclusory statements regarding nexus; she does not identify supporting 8 facts or relevant legal authority to support a nexus finding. Therefore, she has 9 abandoned review of the nexus determination, which is dispositive of asylum and 10 withholding of removal. See Debique, 58 F.4th at 684; Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 11 426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (deeming claim abandoned where brief 12 “devote[d] only a single conclusory sentence to the argument”). 13 Unlike asylum and withholding, CAT relief does not require nexus to a 14 protected ground. A CAT applicant must prove she will “more likely than not” 15 be tortured “by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a 16 public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official 17 capacity.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1); see also Quintanilla-Mejia v. 18 Garland, 3 F.4th 569, 592 (2d Cir. 2021). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of CAT 4  1 relief, finding that Ortiz-Mendoza did not explain how she would be tortured or 2 how the government would acquiesce to her torture. Ortiz-Mendoza’s brief here 3 provides only conclusory statements that she will likely be tortured if she returns 4 and that the Honduran government allows gangs to do as they wish, but she does 5 not identify evidence supporting these statements and she alleged past domestic 6 violence at the hands of a former partner, not past harm by gangs. Therefore, as 7 she has not meaningfully challenged the grounds for the agency’s denial of CAT 8 relief, this claim is abandoned. See Debique, 58 F.4th at 684; Yueqing Zhang, 426 F.3d 9 at 545 n. 7; see also Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 432 F.3d 156, 160 (2d Cir. 2005) 10 (requiring “particularized evidence” of torture beyond general country 11 conditions). 12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. All pending 13 motions and applications are DENIED and stays VACATED. 14 FOR THE COURT: 15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 16 Clerk of Court 5