Velasquez-Velasquez v. Sessions, 686 F. App'x 38

Petitioners Ingris Yamilez Velasquez-Velasquez and her daughter, Honduran nationals, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after coming to the U.S.
An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief in April 2015; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed in January 2016.
Velasquez’s claim principally rested on gang extortion threats against her and her daughters while she ran a store in Honduras; she submitted a police report documenting threats.
She testified her husband was robbed and beaten in 2009 while working as a taxi driver, and that family debts followed, but she did not claim she personally suffered physical assault.
Two daughters remained in Honduras (relocated to the capital) and were unharmed; petitioners presented no evidence of ongoing threats after they closed the store and left Honduras.
The Second Circuit reviewed the BIA/IJ decisions and denied the petition for review, concluding the agency reasonably rejected the claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner suffered past persecution	Velasquez argued gang threats and reported assault at her store amounted to persecution	Government argued threats were unfulfilled and record lacked evidence of physical assault or severe harm	Court held threats alone did not rise to persecution; record lacked proof of physical assault
Whether harm to petitioner’s husband establishes petitioner’s persecution	Velasquez pointed to husband’s robbery/ beating and ensuing financial hardship	Government argued harm to a family member does not substitute for petitioner’s own persecution	Court held family member’s harm insufficient absent shared protected characteristic, presence in zone of risk, or continuing hardship
Whether petitioner has a well‑founded fear of future persecution / ability to relocate internally	Velasquez asserted continued fear and inability to relocate to Honduran capital	Government argued no evidence of continuing threats, similarly situated relatives unharmed, and internal relocation to capital was reasonable	Court held fear speculative and internal relocation reasonable; petitioner failed to show objective risk
Whether denial of asylum also bars withholding and CAT relief	Velasquez contended same facts supported all relief forms	Government argued failure on asylum factual predicate defeats related claims	Court held denial of asylum foreclosed withholding and CAT relief because claims share the same factual basis

Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332 (2d Cir. 2006) (persecution requires harm above mere harassment)
Gui Ci Pan v. U.S. Att’y General, 449 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 2006) (unfulfilled threats alone do not constitute persecution)
Guan Shan Liao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 293 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2002) (threats of detention or nonviolent conduct are not necessarily persecution)
Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2004) (well‑founded fear requires both subjective fear and objective reasonableness)
Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 1999) (diminished future‑fear where similarly situated individuals remain unharmed)
Jian Xing Huang v. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2005) (fear is speculative without solid record support)
Tao Jiang v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2007) (harm to family members does not substitute for applicant’s own persecution)
Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (denial of asylum on factual grounds can foreclose withholding and CAT relief)
Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2011) (persecution is an extreme concept and does not include all offensive treatment)