20-1287 Argueta-Fuentes v. Garland BIA Sagerman, IJ A202 136 873 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 27th day of May, two thousand twenty-two. Present: RICHARD C. WESLEY, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, BETH ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ OSCAR BLADIMIR ARGUETA-FUENTES, Petitioner, v. 20-1287 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: JOHN H. PENG (Christine D. McClellan, on the brief), Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York, Albany, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: JONATHAN ROSS (Brian Boynton, Assistant Attorney General, Sarah S. Wilson, Senior Litigation Counsel, Katherine S. Fischer, Trial Attorney, on the brief), 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 DENIED. Petitioner Oscar Bladimir Argueta-Fuentes, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a March 20, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming a September 24, 2019, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Oscar Bladimir Argueta-Fuentes, No. A 202 136 873 (B.I.A. Mar. 20, 2020), aff’g No. A 202 136 873 (Immigr. Ct. Napanoch Sept. 24, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the record. On appeal, Argueta-Fuentes argues that the agency erred in determining that he failed to meet his burden to obtain CAT relief, that is, to “establish that it is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed.” Ojo v. Garland, 25 F.4th 152, 168 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)). We review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. Quintanilla- Mejia v. Garland, 3 F.4th 569, 583 (2d Cir. 2021). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Ojo, 25 F.4th at 160–61 (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo); Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S.Ct. 1683, 1692– 93 (2020) (judicial review of the denial of CAT relief is “under the deferential substantial-evidence standard”). Argueta-Fuentes first takes issue with the IJ’s statement that “[a]bsent specific evidence that respondent himself will be a target . . . his claim to protection fails,” Cert. Admin. R. 69, and argues …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals