19-2488-ag Ramirez-Hernandez v. Garland BIA Cohen, IJ A202 128 957 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 28th day of June, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, MYRNA PÉREZ, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ Iris Lorena Ramirez-Hernandez, AKA Iris Lorena Ramirez-De Hernandez, Petitioner, v. 19-2488-ag Merrick B. Garland, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Stuart Altman, Esq., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Song Park, Acting Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, for Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration 2 Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the 3 petition for review is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. 4 Petitioner Iris Lorena Ramirez-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review 5 of a July 17, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a November 16, 2017 decision of an Immigration 6 Judge (“IJ”) denying Ramirez-Hernandez’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 7 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Iris Lorena Ramirez-Hernandez, No. 8 A202 128 957 (B.I.A. Jul. 17, 2019), aff’g No. A202 128 957 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Nov. 16, 2017). 9 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 10 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA’s 11 decision, e.g., minus the adverse credibility determination that the BIA did not affirm. See Ming 12 Xia Chen v. BIA, 435 F.3d 141, 144 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 13 271–72 (2d Cir. 2005) (assuming without determining credibility where the BIA declined to affirm 14 an IJ’s adverse credibility determination). We review questions of law de novo, see Paloka v. 15 Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014), and findings of fact for substantial evidence, “treating 16 the[se] [findings] as ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to 17 conclude to the contrary,’” id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). 18 I. Asylum and Withholding of Removal 19 We deny the petition as to asylum and withholding of removal. The agency …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals