17-919 Arevalo-Callejas v. Whitaker BIA Straus, IJ A094 829 807 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 28th day of November, two thousand 5 eighteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 10 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 LUDWIN ELEAZAR AREVALO-CALLEJAS, 15 AKA LUDWIN AREVALO, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 17-919 19 NAC 20 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, 21 ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 22 GENERAL, 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Daniel A. McLaughlin, Sidley 27 Austin LLP, New York, NY. 28 29 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 30 Attorney General; Cindy S. 31 Ferrier, Assistant Director; 32 Brendan P. Hogan, Attorney, Office 33 of Immigration Litigation, United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Ludwin Eleazar Arevalo-Callejas, a native 9 and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a March 23, 10 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a November 17, 2016, 11 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Arevalo- 12 Callejas’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, 13 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 14 In re Ludwin Eleazar Arevalo-Callejas, No. A094 829 807 15 (B.I.A. Mar. 23, 2017), aff’g No. A094 829 807 (Immig. Ct. 16 Hartford Nov. 17, 2016). We assume the parties’ 17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 18 history in this case. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 20 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. Wala v. 21 Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007). We review the 22 agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, 8 2 1 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 2 276, 281-83 (2d Cir. 2006); Joaquin-Porras v. Gonzales, 435 3 F.3d 172, 181 (2d Cir. 2006), and questions of law de novo, 4 Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). 5 I. Asylum & Withholding of Removal 6 For both asylum and withholding of removal, an 7 “applicant must establish that race, religion, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals