17-148 Acevedo-Ybarra v. Sessions BIA Sichel, IJ A088 038 839/840 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 18th day of September, two thousand 5 eighteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 RALPH K. WINTER, 9 GUIDO CALABRESI, 10 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 AUGUSTIN ACEVEDO-YBARRA, 14 DARGELY HINDRIA BATISTA-ABREU, 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 17-148 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONERS: Roger Asmar, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Derek C. Julius, 28 Assistant Director; Jason Wisecup, 29 Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioners Augustin Acevedo-Ybarra (“Acevedo”), a 6 native and citizen of Mexico, and Dargely Hindria Batista- 7 Abreu (“Batista”), a native and citizen of the Dominican 8 Republic, seek review of a December 19, 2016, reissued 9 decision of the BIA affirming a December 12, 2013, decision 10 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Acevedo and Batista’s 11 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 12 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Augustin 13 Acevedo-Ybarra, Dargely Hindria Batista-Abreu, No. A 088 038 14 839/840 (B.I.A. Dec. 19, 2016), aff’g No. A 088 038 839/840 15 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 12, 2013). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 17 in this case. 18 We have reviewed the decisions of both the BIA and the 19 IJ. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 20 2008). Acevedo and Batista do not challenge the agency’s 21 denial of asylum as time barred or the denial of CAT 22 relief, so the only claim before us is the denial of 2 1 withholding of removal. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 2 F.3d 540, 541 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards 3 of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 4 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals