19-2798 Gonzalez-Carias v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A206 711 528/529 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 17th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 REENA RAGGI, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CLAUDIA LICETH GONZALEZ-CARIAS, 14 JOXAN ADALI GONZALES-CARIAS 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 19-2798 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONERS: Glenn L. Formica, FORMICA, P.C., 25 New Haven, CT 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 28 General; Leslie McKay, Margot L. 1 Carter, Senior Litigation Counsel, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC 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 Petitioners Claudia Liceth Gonzalez-Carias (“Claudia”) 10 and Joxan Adali Gonzales-Carias (“Joxan”), natives and 11 citizens of Honduras, seek review of an August 7, 2019 12 decision of the BIA affirming a January 2, 2018 decision of 13 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 14 removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 15 (“CAT”). In re Claudia Liceth Gonzalez-Carias, Joxan Adali 16 Gonzales-Carias, No. A 206 711 528/529 (B.I.A. Aug. 7, 2019), 17 aff’g No. A 206 711 528/529 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Jan. 2, 2018). 18 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 19 and procedural history. 20 We review both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions for the “sake 21 of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 22 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of 23 review are well established. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 2 1 F.3d 510, 513, 516 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing factual findings 2 for substantial evidence and questions of law and application 3 of law to facts de novo); Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 4 276, 282–83 (2d Cir. 2006) (applying substantial evidence 5 standard to nexus determination). “[T]he administrative 6 findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable 7 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals