17-2071 Solano-Sanchez v. Sessions BIA Kolbe, IJ A202 075 479/480/481/490 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 TO 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 1st day of August, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ERIKA MARISOL SOLANO-SANCHEZ, 14 JAQUELINE ARIANA CARDOZA-SOLANO, 15 MANUEL ALEXANDER VALENCIA- 16 SOLANO, MANUEL ENRIQUE VALENCIA 17 DURAN, 18 19 Petitioners, 20 21 v. 17-2071 22 NAC 23 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 24 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 25 26 Respondent. 27 _____________________________________ 28 1 FOR PETITIONERS: S. Michael Musa-Obregon, White 2 Plains, NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 5 Attorney General; John S. Hogan, 6 Assistant Director; Rebecca 7 Hoffberg Phillips, Trial 8 Attorney, Office of Immigration 9 Litigation, United States 10 Department of Justice, 11 Washington, DC. 12 13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 14 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, IT IS HEREBY 15 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 16 is DENIED. 17 Petitioners Erika Marisol Solano-Sanchez, Jaqueline 18 Ariana Cardoza-Solano, Manuel Alexander Valencia-Solano, and 19 Manuel Enrique Valencia Duran, natives and citizens of El 20 Salvador, seek review of a June 12, 2017, decision of the BIA 21 affirming a December 8, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge 22 (“IJ”) denying Solano-Sanchez’s and Duran’s applications for 23 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 24 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 In re Erika Marisol 25 Solano-Sanchez, Jaqueline Ariana Cardoza-Solano, Manuel 26 Alexander Valencia-Solano, Manuel Enrique Valencia Duran, 1Solano-Sanchez and Duran’s minor children, Cardoza-Solano and Valencia-Solano, were included on their applications as derivative beneficiaries. 2 1 Nos. A202 075 479/480/481/490 (B.I.A. June 12, 2017), aff’g 2 Nos. A202 075 479/480/481/490 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 8, 3 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 4 facts and procedural history in this case. 5 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 6 the IJ’s decision as the final agency decision. Shunfu Li v. 7 Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable 8 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 9 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals