20-785 Jimenez-Samaniego v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A208 205 181 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 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 1st day of June, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 LUIS ARIOLFO JIMENEZ-SAMANIEGO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-785 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Glenn L. Formica, Formica, P.C., 24 New Haven, CT. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; Song 28 Park, Acting Assistant Director; 1 Sarah L. Martin, Trial Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Luis Ariolfo Jimenez-Samaniego, a native and 10 citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a February 10, 2020 11 decision of the BIA affirming a March 28, 2018 decision of an 12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Jimenez-Samaniego’s asylum 13 application. 1 In re Luis Ariolfo Jimenez-Samaniego, No. A208 14 205 181 (B.I.A. Feb. 10, 2020), aff’g No. A208 205 181 (Immig. 15 Ct. Hartford Mar. 28, 2018). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 17 We have reviewed the decision of the IJ as modified and 18 supplemented by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 19 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. 20 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 21 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 22 § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are 1 Jimenez-Samaniego does not challenge the denial of withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. 2 1 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 2 compelled to conclude to the contrary . . . .”); Yanqin Weng 3 v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing factual 4 findings for substantial evidence and questions of law and 5 application of law …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals