20-3828 Cruz Ventura v. Garland BIA Lurye, IJ A206 013 523 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 24th day of April, two thousand twenty-three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 EUNICE C. LEE, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 RUDY ORLANDO CRUZ VENTURA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-3828 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Borja, Borja Law Firm, P.C., 25 Jackson Heights, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Walter Bocchini, 29 Susan Bennett Green, Senior 30 Litigation Counsel, Office of 31 Immigration Litigation, United States 32 Department of Justice, Washington, 33 DC. 1 2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board 3 of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, 4 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 5 Rudy Orlando Cruz Ventura, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 6 seeks review of an October 9, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming 7 a December 12, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 8 his application for withholding of removal. 1 In re Rudy Orlando 9 Cruz Ventura, No. A 206 013 523 (B.I.A. Oct. 9, 2020), aff’g No. 10 A 206 013 523 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 12, 2017). We assume 11 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 12 history. 13 “When the BIA briefly affirms the decision of an IJ and adopts 14 the IJ’s reasoning in doing so, we review the IJ’s and the BIA’s 15 decisions together.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Immigr. 16 & Customs Enf’t, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal 17 quotation marks removed and alterations adopted). We review 18 findings of fact for substantial evidence. See Edimo-Doualla v. 19 Gonzales, 464 F.3d 276, 282 (2d Cir. 2006). Under the substantial 20 evidence standard, “a finding will stand if it is supported by 21 reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the record when 1 Cruz Ventura did not seek asylum, and he does not challenge the denial of his claim under the Convention Against Torture. 2 1 considered as …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals