19-1822 Bolanos Salazar v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A208 600 597 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 25th day of July, two thousand twenty- 4 three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 10 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 LUIS ALBERTO BOLANOS SALAZAR, 15 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 19-1822 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES 21 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 1 FOR PETITIONER: Gerald R. Nowotny, Latin American Law 2 Center, Canton, CT. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; 5 Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director; 6 Stephen Finn, Trial Attorney, Office of 7 Immigration Litigation, United States 8 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 9 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 Luis Alberto Bolanos Salazar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 14 seeks review of a decision of the BIA affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge 15 (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal.1 In re Luis 16 Alberto Bolanos Salazar, No. A208 600 597 (B.I.A. May 24, 2019), aff’g No. A208 600 17 597 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Nov. 20, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 18 the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 Where, as here, the BIA largely adopts the IJ’s decision, “we review the 20 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA.” Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 21 271 (2d Cir. 2005). An agency’s factual findings are reviewed under the 1 Salazar does not challenge the agency’s denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. 2 1 substantial-evidence standard, and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. See 2 Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). “[T]he administrative findings of 3 fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to 4 conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 5 In order to obtain asylum or withholding of removal, an applicant must 6 demonstrate past persecution, or a reasonable fear of future persecution, and 7 establish …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals