20-4044 Alfaro Perez v. Garland BIA Nelson, IJ A209 440 119 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 26th day of April, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 Chief Judge, 10 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 11 EUNICE C. LEE, 12 Circuit Judges. 13 _____________________________________ 14 15 SANTOS E. ALFARO PEREZ, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 20-4044 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, 27 NY. 28 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Jonathan 3 Robbins, Senior Litigation 4 Counsel; Andrew B. Insenga, 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 Petitioner Santos E. Alfaro Perez, a native and citizen 14 of El Salvador, seeks review of a November 10, 2020 decision 15 of the BIA affirming an August 28, 2018 decision of an 16 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, 17 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 18 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Santos E. Alfaro Perez, No. 19 A 209 440 119 (B.I.A. Nov. 10, 2020), aff’g No. A 209 440 119 20 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 28, 2018). We assume the parties’ 21 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 22 We review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, 23 considering only whether Alfaro Perez established that the 24 Salvadoran government is unable or unwilling to protect her 25 or would acquiesce to her torture. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 2 1 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review 2 factfinding for substantial evidence and questions of law and 3 the application of law de novo. Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 4 316, 326 (2d Cir. 2020). “[T]he administrative findings of 5 fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would 6 be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. 7 § 1252(b)(4)(B). …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals