16-1547 Orellana-Mateo v. Whitaker BIA Straus, IJ A205 379 495 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 16th day of November, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ERICK GERMAN ORELLANA-MATEO, Petitioner, v. 16-1547 NAC MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Susan N. Masters, Joshua S. Mirer, Hartford, Connecticut. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director; Alexander J. Lutz, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. Petitioner Erick German Orellana-Mateo, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of the BIA’s affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of Orellana-Mateo’s application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Erick German Orellana-Mateo, No. A 205 379 495 (B.I.A. Apr. 19, 2016), aff’g No. A 205 379 495 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Dec. 8, 2014). Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA, see Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005), applying well established standards of review, see Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (reviewing agency’s legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence). In so doing, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 2 of this case, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to grant the petition. To secure CAT relief, Orellana-Mateo must show that someone in his circumstances is more likely than not to be tortured if removed. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17; Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 168 (2d Cir. 2004); Mu- Xing Wang v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 130, 144 (2d Cir. 2003). The alleged torture must be “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). “Acquiescence . . . requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals