Aparicio Meza v. Garland

20-3987 Aparicio Meza v. Garland BIA Nelson, IJ A206 694 590/591 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 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 2nd day of August, two thousand twenty-three. PRESENT: JOSEPH F. BIANCO, EUNICE C. LEE, MYRNA PÉREZ, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ LORENA PATRICIA APARICIO MEZA, K.P. SALAMANCA APARICIO, Petitioners, v. 20-3987 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Usman B. Ahmad, Esq., Long Island City, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Bryan Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel; Virginia Lum, 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 GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order. Petitioners Lorena Patricia Aparicio Meza and her minor daughter, K.P., natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a November 2, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming an August 29, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lorena Patricia Aparicio Meza, K.P. Salamanca Aparicio, Nos. A 206 694 590/591 (B.I.A. Nov. 2, 2020), aff’g Nos. A 206 694 590/591 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 29, 2018). Petitioners alleged that K.P.’s father, Ever, witnessed a MS-13 murder in El Salvador and that gang members threatened him for testifying and killed his father and uncle a few years later. Petitioners asserted that they would be persecuted or tortured on account of their membership in the particular social group of “immediate family members of witnesses.” Pet’r’s Br. at 10. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Because the BIA focused on the nexus between the feared harm and the proposed social group of immediate family members of witnesses, and did not address whether petitioners were members of the proposed group or …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals