UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED petitioner in forma pauperis ( ʺ IFP ʺ ), appointment of counsel, and stay of removal proceedings DENIED.

Petitioner Guillermo Teodoro Pillco, native citizen Ecuador, seeks removal in connection with his decision Board Immigration ʺ ) denying his reopen. In re Guillermo Teodoro No. A094 (B.I.A. Dec. 2016). assume parties ʹ  familiarity underlying facts procedural history in this entered States without authorization

placed proceedings 2007. He applied related relief fear Ecuadorian thieves had stolen cattle his farm, assaulted grandmother, threatened kill him he returned Ecuador. In immigration judge IJ ) applications ordered removed concluding had established neither nexus nor government. affirmed IJ 2013.

In 2016, Pillco moved to reopen BIA proceedings new set of threats Enrique Saltos, man who allegedly attributes his criminal conviction to purported cooperation U.S. law enforcement. claims that Saltos attacked members Ecuador and threatened to kill them if return pay losses that suffered while prison. On December BIA untimely concluding had identified materially changed circumstances excuse untimeliness, held further arguments lacked merit because no nexus by or government. petitioned, pro se review denial now moves IFP removal.

A. Status

Under U.S.C. § court may allow without prepayment fees indigent litigant submits an affidavit financial assets inability pay fees. U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). court, however,  ʺ shall dismiss case any time if court determines . . action appeal frivolous. ʺ   1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An action frivolous this context arguable fact. Neitzke Williams (1989). denial reopen abuse discretion mindful such are disfavored. ʺ Ali Gonzales

(2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting I.N.S. v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 323 (1992)). The BIA ordinarily will not grant such motion unless movant has met the  ʹ heavy burden ʹ  demonstrating new evidence presented would alter result in ʺ Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t Justice , 421 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. (quoting Matter Coelho 20 I. & N. Dec. 473 (B.I.A. 1992)). BIA abuses its discretion if its decision provides rational explanation, inexplicably departs established policies, is devoid any reasoning, contains only summary conclusory statements. ʺ Kaur Bd. Immigration 413 233 (per curiam) (quoting Ke Zhen Zhao U.S. Dep’t Justice 2001)). conclude BIA not abuse its discretion in denying ʹ s reopen. First, we agree ʹ s motion reopen untimely because (1) he filed more than days final in (2) identified any materially changed conditions Ecuador would qualify exception day deadline. §§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (ii). His reliance report Department State on human rights violations misplaced because report, which describes difficulties generally facing enforcement respect human rights violations, relevant material purported changes conditions personal life.

Second, even were timely claims withholding because recent allegations *5 based on private attempts to collect a debt. A fear safety based on private attempts  ‐‐   ‐‐  to collect debt not fear safety based on persecution on protected ground, therefore not asylum. See 8 1101(a)(42) (identifying race, religion, nationality, membership particular social group, political opinion as protected grounds); Saleh v. Dep t Justice , 962 F.2d 240 Cir. 1992) (rejecting financial inability to  ʺ pay[] blood money to victim ʺ  as defining characteristic social group facing persecution on (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Jan v. Holder , F.3d 458 59 (7th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (determining indebtedness ʺ  not immutable characteristic could define persecuted social group); Romilus v. Ashcroft F.3d (1st Cir. 2004) ( ʺ INA not intended to protect aliens from violence personal animosity. ʺ ); Florez de Solis I.N.S. (9th (holding petitioner, target private attempts to collect debt, suffer political persecution). Here, has colorable claim asylum withholding removal. Ramsameachire Ashcroft ʺ [A]n alien fails establish entitlement necessarily fails establish entitlement withholding removal.

Third, also merit claim under Nations Convention Against Torture CAT ) because, held, sufficiently asserted inability unwillingness government protect *6 from the alleged harm. See Khouzam Ashcroft CAT itself requires that be inflicted by or at instigation or the public official or other person acting an official capacity. ʺ  (internal quotation marks omitted)) Pillco asserts local law enforcement remained willfully blind ʹ s threats assaults and, despite complaint submitted by ʹ s relatives nothing investigate prosecute Saltos. This assertion is, however, contradicted own evidence, which shows police began investigating collecting evidence shortly complaint prosecutor investigated assessed strength evidence before closing

Because properly denied reopen, we conclude petition lacks arguable fact therefore frivolous. See Neitzke 325. Accordingly, dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), denied as moot. Mills Fischer [A] litigant barred proceeding under likewise ineligible benefits provided therein.

B. Remaining Motions need address merits remaining motions light dismissal petition. His counsel also moot. *7 Accordingly, DENIED DISMISSED THE COURT: Catherine O Hagan Wolfe, Clerk