19-1550 Esperanza-Hernandez v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A206 883 420 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 12th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _________________________________________ 12 13 MARIA ESPERANZA-HERNANDEZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-1550 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _________________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Esq., 24 Hempstead, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Nehal 29 H. Kamani, Trial Attorney, Office 1 of Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Maria Esperanza-Hernandez, a native and 10 citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a May 15, 2019, 11 decision of the BIA affirming a January 31, 2018, decision of 12 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 14 (“CAT”). In re Maria Esperanza-Hernandez, No. A206 883 420 15 (B.I.A. May 15, 2019), aff’g No. A206 883 420 (Immig. Ct. 16 N.Y. City Jan. 31, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 17 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 18 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 19 BIA, which affirmed the IJ’s decision without reaching all of 20 the reasons given by the IJ. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 21 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of 22 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 23 Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195-96 (2d Cir. 2014). 24 2 1 To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of 2 removal, an applicant must show that she suffered past 3 persecution, or has a well-founded fear or likelihood of 4 future persecution, on account of race, religion, 5 nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 6 political opinion. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(A), 7 (B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A). We find …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals