17-2263 Romero-Flores v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A206 688 042/043 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 13th day of January, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 9 Circuit Judges.1 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 GLENDA XIOMARA ROMERO-FLORES, 13 DIEGO SAUL SANTOS-ROMERO, 14 Petitioners, 15 16 v. 17-2263 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONERS: Peter E. Torres, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General, Civil Division; 27 Claire L. Workman, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel; Maarja T. 29 Luhtaru, Trial Attorney, Office of 1The panel originally included Circuit Judge Christopher F. Droney, who fully retired from the court on December 31, 2019. This case is decided by the remaining two judges, consistent with section E(b) of the Internal Operating Procedures of the Second Circuit. 1 Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioners Glenda Xiomara Romero-Flores and her son 9 Diego Saul Santos-Romero, natives and citizens of Honduras, 10 seek review of a June 30, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming 11 a January 9, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 12 denying Romero-Flores’s application for asylum, withholding 13 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 14 (“CAT”). In re Glenda Xiomara Romero-Flores, Diego Saul 15 Santos-Romero, Nos. A 206 688 042/043 (B.I.A. June 30, 2017), 16 aff’g Nos. A 206 688 042/043 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 9, 17 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 18 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered 20 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 21 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 22 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review 23 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Y.C. v. 24 Holder, 741 F.3d 325, 332 (2d Cir. 2013). ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals