20-963 Ventura-De Argueta v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A089 101 676 A202 080 325/326 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 15th day of November, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, BETH ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ YOLANDA VENTURA-DE ARGUETA, AKA YOLANDA ELIZABETH VENTURA-LUNA, AKA YOLANDA LUNA VENTURA, AKA JUANA ELIZABETH VENTURA GUEBARA, SIFREDO RAMOS-VENTURA, DILAN ARGUETA-VENTURA, Petitioners, v. No. 20-963 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ For Petitioners: KAI W. DE GRAAF, Esq., Ada, MI. For Respondent: KEVIN J. CONWAY, Trial Attorney (Jennifer B. Dickey, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief), for Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 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 Yolanda Ventura-De Argueta (Ventura), Sifredo Ramos-Ventura, and Dilan Argueta-Ventura, natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a March 6, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming an April 12, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In re Yolanda Ventura-De Argueta, Sifredo Ramos-Ventura, Dilan Argueta-Ventura, Nos. A089 101 676, A202 080 325/326 (B.I.A. Mar. 6, 2020), aff’g Nos. A089 101 676, A202 080 325/326 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 12, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the case. “Where the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ and merely supplements the IJ’s decision, . . . we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA.” Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).1 1 We note that in general, we lack jurisdiction over petitions, such as Ventura’s, seeking review of the BIA’s decision to deny withholding of removal following reinstatement of a prior order of removal when the petition is filed more than thirty days from the reinstatement decision. See Bhaktibhai-Patel v. Garland, 32 F.4th 180, 183–84 (2d Cir. 2022). In this case, however, the agency …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals