17-149 Arguijo-Anariba v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A206 625 565 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 27th day of March, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 REENA RAGGI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SONIA ARGUIJO-ANARIBA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-149 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Robert C. Ross, West Haven, CT. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Deitz 28 P. Lefort, Trial Attorney, Office 29 of Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 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 Petitioner Sonia Arguijo-Anariba, a native and citizen 6 of Honduras, seeks review of a BIA decision affirming an 7 Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of 8 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 9 (“CAT”). In re Sonia Arguijo-Anariba, No. A206 625 565 10 (B.I.A. Dec. 20, 2016), aff’g No. A206 625 565 (Immig. Ct. 11 Hartford May 16, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity 12 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 13 The BIA declined to reach the IJ’s adverse credibility 14 determination, and we review only the determination made by 15 the BIA. See Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 16 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Therefore, we will assume, as the BIA 17 did, petitioner’s credibility. Applying well-established 18 standards of review, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), Yanqin 19 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009), we identify 20 no error in the agency’s determination that Arguijo-Anariba 21 failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear 22 of future persecution on account of a protected ground. 2 1 Arguijo-Anariba had to demonstrate that she experienced 2 past persecution or feared future persecution on account of 3 her “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 4 social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals