840 F.3d 21

1st Cir.

2016

Claudia Milena GIRALDO-PABON, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, United States Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-1260

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

October 21, 2016

O‘Donnell next contends that, even if the record supports the inference that he specifically intended to defraud Countrywide Bank, FSB, the government still had to show that he took a “substantial step” towards executing that fraudulent scheme in order for him to be convicted of “attempt[ing]” to execute such a scheme. But, as we have already pointed out, the record reveals that O‘Donnell responded to the conditions sheet in which Countrywide Bank, FSB thanked him for submitting his loan by sending fraudulent information in order to secure the loan. The sending of such information in re-sponse to that request qualifies as a “substantial step” because it is an act “of such a nature that a reasonable observer, viewing it in context, could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it was undertaken with a design to violate the statute.” See United States v. Dworken, 855 F.2d 12, 19-20 (1st Cir. 1988).

In so concluding, we recognize that the record shows that O‘Donnell sent his response containing the fabricated information to Countrywide Home Loans rather than to Countrywide Bank, FSB. And we recognize, too, that the papers that O‘Donnell received in connection with the loan transaction referred to both Countrywide Home Loans and tо Countrywide Bank, FSB. But, as we have explained, the nature of the references in those documents to Countrywide Bank, FSB are such that the record adequately supports the inference that O‘Donnell specifically intended to defraud that latter entity and not simply the former one. Thus, the record sufficiently supports the finding that, by submitting fraudulent information to secure the loan in response to the conditions sheet that thanked O‘Donnell for submitting his loan to Countrywide Bank, FSB, O‘Donnell was taking a substantial step in his attempt to execute a fraudulent scheme directed at that same entity, even though he sent the response itself to Countrywide Homе Loans.

Finally, O‘Donnell argues that it was legally impossible for him to commit attempted bank fraud if he did not commit the completed crime, given that he specifically intended to defraud only Countrywide Home Loаns and that he was not found guilty of doing anything more than attempting to defraud Countrywide Bank, FSB. This contention necessarily rests, however, on the premise that the evidence showing O‘Donnell‘s awareness of Countrywide Bank, FSB‘s invоlvement in the loan transaction is insufficient to support the finding that O‘Donnell specifically intended to defraud Countrywide Bank, FSB. But, as we have explained, that premise is mistaken, given the documents thanking O‘Donnell for submitting his loan to Countrywide Bank, FSB and O‘Donnell‘s admitted sophistication in the loan origination business. Thus, O‘Donnell‘s legal impossibility argument is without substance.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the conviction is affirmed.

Elyssa N. Williams on brief for petitioner.

Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, and John F. Stanton, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Dep‘t of Justice, on brief for respondent.

Before HOWARD, Chief Judge, SELYA and LIPEZ, Circuit Judges.

HOWARD, Chief Judge.

Petitioner Claudia Milena Giraldo-Pabon (“Giraldo“), а native and citizen of Colombia, asks us to review a Board of Immigration Appeals ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍(“BIA“) order denying her motion to reopen. After careful consideration of the briefs and the record, we deny her petition.

I.

Having previously entered this country without inspection and later returned to Colombia, Giraldo entered the United States unlawfully in 2004 and was subsequently served with a Notice to Appear charging her as removаble pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act §§ 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I).¹ In response, Giraldo sought asylum, withhold-ing of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT“). Her claims were denied, yet she did not appeal the immigration judge‘s (“IJ“) decision to the BIA. Instead, Giraldo voluntarily returned to Colombia.²

Giraldo re-entered the United States in 2013 and filed a motion to reopen removal proceedings in August 2014. She submitted evidence of drug gang-related acts of violence against two of her cousins in Colombia in support of her motion.

The IJ denied Giraldo‘s motion to reopen on two grounds, one of which was that Giraldo had failed to establish an exception to the time limitations on motions to reopen. The BIA affirmed the IJ‘s decision on this basis. Giraldo filed this timely petition seeking review of the BIA‘s decision.

II.

Where, as here, the BIA issues a decision adopting and illuminating some of аn IJ‘s findings and conclusions, we treat the relevant parts of the two decisions as one for purposes of review. See Wan v. Holder, 776 F.3d 52, 55-56 (1st Cir. 2015). We review the agency‘s denial of a motion to reopen removal prоceedings for abuse of discretion. Mejia-Ramaja v. Lynch, 806 F.3d 19, 20 (1st Cir. 2015). Under this standard, we must uphold the BIA‘s decision unless Giraldo can show “that the BIA committed ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍an error of law or exercised its judgment in an arbitrary, capricious, or irrational way.” Tandayu v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 97, 100 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting Raza v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 125, 127 (1st Cir. 2007)).

Nоrmally, a motion to reopen immigration proceedings must be filed within 90 days of the entry of the final order of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Giraldo‘s motion was filed well past—in fact, years past—this 90-day limit. There is, however, an excеption available when the motion to reopen is “based on changed circumstances arising in . . . the country to which deportation has been ordered.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Giraldo seeks to overcome the lateness of her motion by invoking this exception. We agree with the BIA that the exception is inapplicable. See Mejia-Ramaja, 806 F.3d at 21.

Two related but distinct questions are on the table when an untimely motion to reopen has been filed: first, whether the petitioner has presented sufficient evidence of changed country conditions to permit her to file a tardy motion to reopen; and second, whether the new evidence that the petitioner has presented, together with evidence already in the record, shows that she has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on her asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT claims. Smith v. Holder, 627 F.3d 427, 433 (1st Cir. 2010). The agеncy may deny a petition if it determines that the movant has failed to meet either of those requirements. Id. In Giraldo‘s case, the BIA concluded that she had not made out a prima facie case for any of the forms of relief sought.

To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant must prove either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution if repatriated, ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍on account оf one of five enumerated grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). To make out a prima facie case for asylum in thе context of a motion to reopen, the “appli-cant need only produce objective evidence showing a ‘reasonable likelihood’ that [she] will face future persecution based on a statutory ground.” Smith, 627 F.3d at 437 (internal quotation marks omitted). A “reasonable likelihood” means a showing that there is a realistic chance that the petitioner can establish that asylum should be granted at a latеr time. Id.

Giraldo argues that she is eligible for asylum because she has a well-founded fear of future persecution based on kinship ties and imputed political opinion.³ Essentially, she asserts that her safety and security in Colombia are jeopardized by her extended family‘s ongoing involvement in a narco-trafficking cartel.

It is true that one‘s family can constitute a protected social group. See Aldana-Ramos v. Holder, 757 F.3d 9, 15 (1st Cir. 2014) (“The law in this circuit and others is clear that a family may be a particular social group simply by virtue of its kinship ties, without requiring anything more.“). However, the BIA did not find that Giraldo failed to establish membership ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍in a particular sociаl group; rather, it determined that she failed to show that she could establish the necessary nexus between the feared persecution and her group membership. There was no abuse of discretion in that determination.

To satisfy the nexus requirement, an asylum applicant must “provide sufficient evidence to forge an actual connection between the harm and some statutorily protected ground.” Lopez de Hincapie v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 213, 218 (1st Cir. 2007). The BIA did nоt abuse its discretion when it concluded that Giraldo failed to satisfy this requirement. Giraldo cites little in the way of nexus evidence other than her uncle‘s admonition “not to go out too often” after a cousin‘s murdеr and her own belief that another cousin was stabbed because of other family members’ involvement in narco-trafficking. Cf. Guerra-Marchorro v. Holder, 760 F.3d 126, 128-29 (1st Cir. 2014) (substantial evidence supported conclusion that there was no nexus between аlleged harm and a protected ground when petitioner “presented no evidence other than his own speculation to forge the statutorily required link” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Lopez-Castro v. Holder, 577 F.3d 49, 53 (1st Cir. 2009) (“Without knowing who was responsible for the killings [of alien‘s family members] or what had prompted them, there is no more than a guess that a nexus existed between the deaths and a statutorily protected ground.“).

As for Giraldo‘s argument that she would fаce harm on account of her political opinions, that too fails. The only remotely political activities that she cites are starting a prayer group with still another cousin—who has apрarently not been harmed—and “helping people in social projects.” Giraldo also claims to be “vocal[ly] oppos[ed] to criminal enterprises.” Yet, mere opposition to crime, without more, does not constitute a political opinion. Cf. Mayorga-Vidal v. Holder, 675 F.3d 9, 18 (1st Cir. 2012) (opposition to gangs, without more, is not a political opinion). Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying this claim.

Because Giraldo has failed to carry the burden of persuasion for the asylum ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍claim, her counterpart claim for withholding also necessarily fails. See Villa-Londono v. Holder, 600 F.3d 21, 24 n.1 (1st Cir. 2010).

Finally, in her brief to this court, Giraldo referred to her CAT claim in only a perfunctory mannеr. For this reason, she has abandoned that claim. See, e.g., Segran v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 1, 7 & n.2 (1st Cir. 2007).

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we deny Giraldo‘s petition for review.

Notes

Giraldo attempted to enter the United States using an altered Colombian passport bearing her photograph and the name “Sugen Cure Perеz” and containing an altered United States B-1/B-2 nonimmigrant visa.

In 2011, Giraldo traveled to Canada, where she requested refugee status. Following denial of her application, she returned to Colombia. She was in Colombia for less than a month before returning to the United States.

Below, Giraldo sought asylum or withholding of removal on the basis of her religion, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. She has not addressed religion on appeal, and this claim is deemed abandoned. See .

Read the detailed case summary