18-862 Torres-Hernandez v. Barr BIA Connelly, IJ A075 206 892 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 17th day of July, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, MICHAEL H. PARK, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ MANUEL TORRES-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. 18-862 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Amber Gracia, Quan Law Group, PLLC, Houston, TX. FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Lisa S. Murcia, Senior Litigation Counsel; Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 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 DENIED. Petitioner Manuel Torres-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a February 27, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming an October 3, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Torres-Hernandez’s application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Manuel Torres-Hernandez, No. A 075 206 892 (B.I.A. Feb. 27, 2018), aff’g No. A 075 206 892 (Immig. Ct. Batavia Oct. 3, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the denial of CAT relief under the substantial-evidence standard. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692–93 (2020). As discussed below, Torres- Hernandez’s arguments lack merit, and the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. First, the IJ did not overlook relevant evidence or otherwise commit legal error in determining that Torres- 2 Hernandez had not established a likelihood of torture by or with the acquiescence of Mexican officials. An error of law may occur when the agency “totally overlook[s]” or “seriously mischaracterize[s]” material facts. Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316, 323 (2d Cir. 2009). Contrary to Torres-Hernandez’s position, the record reflects that the IJ and BIA considered his evidence. The agency considered his testimony about police corruption in Mexico, the expert’s report, and the country conditions evidence discussing corruption, lack of confidence in Mexican law enforcement, and human rights abuses. The agency was not required ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals