19-3243 Hernandez-Mendoza v. Garland BIA Kolbe, IJ A088 664 186 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 14th day of April, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JOSE HERNANDEZ-MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. 19-3243 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 1 Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Ayhan Ogmen, Ogmen Law, PLLC, New York, NY. 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Nancy Friedman , Senior Litigation Counsel; Margaret A. O’Donnell, 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 Jose Hernandez-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a September 4, 2019, decision of the BIA affirming an April 10, 2019, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying him protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jose Hernandez- Mendoza, No. A 088 664 186 (B.I.A. Sept. 4, 2019), aff’g No. A 088 664 186 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 10, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 2 standards of review for a CAT claim are well established. 2 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Joaquin-Porras v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 172, 181 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing findings of fact for substantial evidence and “review[ing] de novo questions of law regarding what evidence will suffice to carry an[] . . . applicant’s burden of proof” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The likelihood of future events is a factual determination. See Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 2012). Hernandez-Mendoza had the burden to demonstrate that he would “more likely than not” be tortured. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). “Torture is defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals