21-6299 Flores-Silva v. Garland BIA Brennan, IJ A205 320 262 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 the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 28th day of June, two thousand twenty- 4 three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 TELMO RODRIGO FLORES-SILVA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 21-6299 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 1 FOR PETITIONER: Reuben S. Kerben, Esq., Kerben Law Firm, 2 P.C., Kew Gardens, NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 5 General; Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation 6 Counsel; Sarah L. Martin, Trial Attorney, 7 Office of Immigration Litigation, United 8 States Department of Justice, Washington, 9 D.C. 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 11 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 12 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Telmo Rodrigo Flores-Silva, a native and citizen of Ecuador, seeks 14 review of an April 20, 2021 decision of the BIA affirming an October 1, 2018 15 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 16 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 17 (“CAT”). In re Telmo Rodrigo Flores-Silva, No. A 205 320 262 (B.I.A. Apr. 20, 2021), 18 aff’g No. A 205 320 262 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Oct. 1, 2018). We assume the parties’ 19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 21 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 22 2006). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable 2 1 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1252(b)(4)(B). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence 3 and questions of law de novo. See Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014); 4 see also Gjolaj v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 468 F.3d 140, 143 (2d Cir. 5 2006) (reviewing nexus determination for substantial evidence). 6 To qualify for asylum or withholding of removal, an applicant …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals