18-3013 Mejia-Ruiz v. Wilkinson BIA Straus, IJ A 206 222 294 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 9th day of March, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ FERNANDO MEJIA-RUIZ, AKA SERGIO AMAYA-ACOSTA, AKA SERGIO AMAYA KOTE, AKA SERGIO AMAYA-FOTI, Petitioner, v. 18-3013 NAC ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. 1 _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Hamdan Qudah, Patterson, NJ. FOR RESPONDENT: Song Park, Corey L. Farrell, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Robert M. Wilkinson is automatically substituted for former Attorney General William P. Barr. 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 Fernando Mejia-Ruiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a September 14, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming an August 15, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Mejia-Ruiz’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. 2 In re Fernando Mejia-Ruiz, No. A 206 222 294 (B.I.A. Sept. 14, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 222 294 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Aug. 15, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have considered the IJ’s decision as supplemented and modified by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the only issues before us are (1) the BIA’s conclusion that Mejia-Ruiz failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground as required for both asylum and withholding of removal and (2) the BIA’s denial of the motion to remand. 3 I. Nexus to a Protected Ground 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) (reviewing factual findings for substantial 2 Mejia-Ruiz claims his true name is Sergio Amaya Kote; this summary order uses the name used by the agency. The notice to appear alleged that he was a native and citizen of Guatemala, but the IJ accepted his claim that he was a native and citizen …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals