19-1743 Duran-Palacios v. Garland BIA Poczter, IJ A209 236 273 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 12th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, ROBERT D. SACK, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________ MARTA ANGELA DURAN-PALACIOS, Petitioner, v. 19-1743 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _________________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Andrew N. O’Malley, Senior Litigation Counsel; Michele Y. F. Sarko, 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 Marta Angela Duran-Palacios, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a June 3, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a February 7, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Marta Angela Duran-Palacios, No. A209 236 273 (B.I.A. June 3, 2019), aff’g No. A209 236 273 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 7, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the BIA and IJ’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, and we review questions of law de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). An applicant for asylum and withholding of removal “must 2 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); see also id. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 348 (B.I.A. 2010) (applying one central reason standard to withholding of removal). The agency did not err in finding that Duran- Palacios failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm she fears from gangs and her membership in the particular social group of her family. Contrary to Duran-Palacios’s contention, the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of L- E-A-, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals