19-2757 Mirpochoeva v. Garland BIA Lopez-Defillo, IJ A205 899 163/164 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. 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 13th day of July, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, RICHARD C. WESLEY, EUNICE C. LEE, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ OLESIA MIRPOCHOEVA, ABDURAHIM MIRPOCHOEV, Petitioners, v. 19-2757 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Thomas E. Moseley, Law Offices of Thomas E. Moseley, Newark, NJ. FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel; Enitan O. Otunla, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioners Olesia Mirpochoeva, a native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of Russia, and her husband Abdurahim Mirpochoev, a native and citizen of Tajikistan, seek review of an August 13, 2019, decision of the BIA affirming a December 21, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying Mirpochoeva’s application for asylum on which Mirpochoev was a derivative beneficiary. 1 In re Olesia Mirpochoeva, Abdurahim Mirpochoev, Nos. A 205 899 163/164 (B.I.A. Aug. 13, 2019), aff’g Nos. A 205 899 163/164 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 21, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history Mirpochoeva applied for withholding of removal and relief 1 under the Convention Against Torture before the agency, but she petitions for review only of the denial of the asylum claim on which Mirpochoev is a derivative beneficiary. 2 of this petition. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law and application of law to fact de novo. See Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). An asylum applicant has the burden to demonstrate that she suffered past persecution, or has a well- founded fear of future persecution, on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b); 8 C.F.R. § …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals