20-1844 Martinez Fajardo v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A209 218 784/785 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 16th day of November, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 10 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 ADA CLARIBEL MARTINEZ FAJARDO, 15 OSCAR OSMIN POLANCO-AGUILAR, 16 Petitioners, 17 18 v. 20-1844 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 26 FOR PETITIONERS: Gisela Chavez-Garcia, Esq., New 27 York, NY. 28 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Claire L. 3 Workman, Senior Litigation 4 Counsel; John B. Holt, Trial 5 Attorney, Office of Immigration 6 Litigation, United States 7 Department of Justice, Washington, 8 DC. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 12 is DENIED. 13 Petitioners Ada Claribel Martinez Fajardo and Oscar Osmin 14 Polanco-Aguilar, natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek 15 review of a May 19, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming a July 16 11, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their 17 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 18 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ada 19 Claribel Martinez Fajardo, Oscar Osmin Polanco-Aguilar, No. 20 A 209 218 784/785 (B.I.A. May 19, 2020), aff’g No. A 209 218 21 784/785 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 11, 2018). We assume the 22 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 23 history. 24 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 25 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 26 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review 2 1 adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence, 2 see Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018), 3 and treat the agency’s findings of fact as “conclusive unless 4 any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to 5 the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 6 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 7 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals