17-3998-ag Guerra-Galdamez v. Wilkinson 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 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 4th day of February, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges, VICTOR MARRERO, District Judge. * ALEX MEDARDO GUERRA-GALDAMEZ, Petitioner, 17-3998-ag v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, † Respondent. FOR PETITIONER: JOSHUA BARDAVID, New York, NY. *Judge Victor Marrero, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. † The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: JULIA J. TYLER (Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director; on the brief), 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 Alex Medardo Guerra-Galdamez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a November 16, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a March 6, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. In re Alex Medardo Guerra-Galdamez, No. A 206 842 991 (B.I.A. Nov. 16, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 842 991 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 6, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). Whether someone has been persecuted on account of his membership in a particular social group is a factual finding we review under the substantial evidence standard. See Paloka, 762 F.3d at 195, 199 n.4. In order to demonstrate eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, “the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A). Although there may be “more than one motive for mistreatment, . . . at least ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals