19-807 Paltan-Daquilema v. Garland BIA Hom, IJ A205 703 139 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 TO 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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 6th day of August, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JOSE ANTONIO PALTAN-DAQUILEMA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-807 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. * 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Edgar L. Fankbonner, Goldberger & 24 Dubin, PC, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Anthony C. 28 Payne, Assistant Director; Joseph 29 D. Hardy, Trial Attorney, Office 30 of Immigration Litigation, United * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Jose Antonio Paltan-Daquilema, a native and 9 citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a February 28, 2019 10 decision of the BIA affirming a November 17, 2017 decision of 11 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for 12 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 13 Convention Against Torture. In re Jose Antonio Paltan- 14 Daquilema, No. A205 703 139 (B.I.A. Feb. 28, 2019), aff’g No. 15 A205 703 139 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 17, 2017). We assume 16 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 17 procedural history. 18 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s 19 decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the adverse 20 credibility determination that the BIA did not reach. See 21 Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d 22 Cir. 2005). We review the findings of the IJ and the BIA 23 under the substantial evidence standard, and we review 2 1 questions of law de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Wei 2 Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23, 27 (2d Cir. 2018). We review 3 the IJ’s decision to set …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals