20-3135 Acuna-De Garcia v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A208 883 949/950/951 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 18th day of April, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 MYRNA PÉREZ, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 AURELIA ACUNA-DE GARCIA, M. S. 14 G-A, E. L. G-A, 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 20-3135 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONERS: Carolyn M. Corrado, Esq., Jadeja 25 & Cimone, LLP, Hempstead, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Keith I. 1 McManus, Assistant Director; Nelle 2 M. Seymour, Trial Attorney, Office 3 of Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioners Aurelia Acuna-De Garcia, M.S. G-A and E.L. 11 G-A, natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of an 12 August 24, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming an August 21, 13 2018 decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, 14 withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 15 Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 In re Aurelia Acuna-De Garcia, et 16 al., Nos. A208 883 949/950/951 (B.I.A. Aug. 24, 2020), aff’g 17 Nos. A208 883 949/950/951 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 21, 18 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 19 underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have reviewed the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for 21 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 1 We refer primarily to Aurelia Acuna-De Garcia, as her two minor daughters were derivative beneficiaries on her application and also filed their own separate asylum applications. 2 1 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review factual 2 findings for substantial evidence and questions of law and 3 application of law to fact de novo. See Yanqin Weng v. 4 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009); Edimo-Doualla v. 5 Gonzales, 464 F.3d 276, 282–83 (2d Cir. 2006) (applying 6 substantial …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals