20-3130 Duran De La Rosa v. Garland BIA Aikman, IJ A055 969 548 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 17th day of May, two thousand twenty-three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 9 MYRNA PÉREZ, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 WANDER DURAN DE LA ROSA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-3130 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Marissa A. Prianti, Kerry W. 25 Bretz, Bretz & Coven, LLP, New 26 York, NY. 27 28 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Julie M. 3 Iversen, Senior Litigation 4 Counsel; Arthur L. Rabin, 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 Wander Duran De La Rosa, a native and citizen 14 of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of an August 17, 2020, 15 decision of the BIA affirming a February 21, 2020, decision 16 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying deferral of removal 17 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Duran 18 De La Rosa, No. A055 969 548 (B.I.A. Aug. 17, 2020), aff’g 19 No. A055 969 548 (Immig. Ct. Batavia Feb. 21, 2020). We 20 assume the parties’ familiarity with the case. 21 The Government has moved to dismiss Duran’s petition as 22 frivolous. Construing the Government’s motion instead as its 23 brief, we deny Duran’s petition on the merits. 24 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 25 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 2 1 Cir. 2005). We review factfinding for substantial evidence 2 and questions of law and application of law to fact de novo. 3 Quintanilla-Mejia v. Garland, 3 F.4th 569, 583 (2d Cir. 2021). 4 Under the substantial evidence standard, “we must uphold 5 agency factfinding ‘unless any reasonable adjudicator would 6 be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Id. (emphasis 7 omitted) (quoting 8 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals