17-3646 Flores Flores v. Barr BIA McManus, IJ A206 223 272 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 7th day of October, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 ROBERT D. SACK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CARLOS FLORES FLORES, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-3646 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Daniel Spensieri, White Plains, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; John S. Hogan, 28 Assistant Director; Todd J. 29 Cochran, Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Carlos Flores Flores, a native and citizen of 6 Mexico, seeks review of an October 12, 2017, decision of the 7 BIA affirming a March 1, 2017, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying Flores Flores’s application for asylum, 9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Carlos Flores Flores, No. A 11 206 223 272 (B.I.A. Oct. 12, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 223 272 12 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 1, 2017). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 in this case. 15 Because Flores Flores challenges only the denial of CAT 16 relief, we limit our review to that claim. We have reviewed 17 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. See Huo Qiang Chen v. 18 Holder, 773 F.3d 396, 403 (2d Cir. 2014). The applicable 19 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 20 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Wei Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23, 27 (2d 21 Cir. 2018) (reviewing factual findings for substantial 22 evidence and questions of law and the application of law to 2 1 undisputed facts de novo). 2 CAT relief is mandatory if the applicant shows that he 3 would “more likely than not” be tortured. 8 C.F.R. 4 §§ 1208.16(c)(2), ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals