18-2356-ag Montejo-De Cortez v. Garland 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 ASUMMARY 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 for the Second Circuit, held 2 at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New 3 York, on the 17th day of September, two thousand twenty-one. 4 5 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 6 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 7 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 8 Circuit Judges. 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10 SILVIA DE LOS ANGELES MONTEJO- 11 DE CORTEZ, JOSSELIN LISSETH 12 CORTEZ-MONTEJO, MAURICIO 13 ELENILSON CORTEZ-MONTEJO, 14 EMERSON ENRIQUE CORTEZ- 15 MONTEJO, 16 17 Petitioners, 18 19 v. No. 18-2356-ag 20 21 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES 22 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 24 Respondent. 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 FOR PETITIONERS: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, 2 NY 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Matthew A. Spurlock, Trial 5 Attorney, John S. Hogan, 6 Assistant Director, Office of 7 Immigration Litigation, for Brian 8 Boynton, Acting Assistant 9 Attorney General, Civil Division, 10 United States Department of 11 Justice, Washington, DC 12 13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 14 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 15 AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 16 Petitioners Silvia De Los Angeles Montejo-De Cortez and her children 17 Josselin Lisseth Cortez-Montejo, Mauricio Elenilson Cortez-Montejo, and Emerson 18 Enrique Cortez-Montejo, all natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a 19 July 30, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming an August 9, 2017 decision of an 20 Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied asylum, withholding of removal, and 21 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 In re Silvia De Los Angeles 1We refer to Petitioner Silvia De Los Angeles Montejo-De Cortez as “Montejo,” as she refers to herself in her brief, and to her children by their first names. 2 1 Montejo-De Cortez, et al., Nos. A209 428 651/652/655, A209 891 509 (B.I.A. July 30, 2 2018), aff’g Nos. A209 428 651/652/655, A209 891 509 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Aug. 9, 3 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 4 history, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to deny the 5 petition. 6 We review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 7 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 8 2006). “We review factual findings under the substantial …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals