18-3592 Arias-Avila v. Garland BIA Lurye, IJ A208 752 791 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 May, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 REENA RAGGI, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 WENDY CAROLINA ARIAS-AVILA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3592 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 ____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Daniel R. Spensieri, Law Offices 24 of Daniel Spensieri PC, White 25 Plains, NY 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; John S. Hogan, 1 Assistant Director; Mona Maria 2 Yousif, Trial Attorney, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Wendy Carolina Arias-Avila, a native and 11 citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a November 5, 2018 12 decision of the BIA affirming a November 14, 2017 decision of 13 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for 14 asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Wendy Carolina 16 Arias-Avila, No. A 208 752 791 (B.I.A. Nov. 5, 2018), aff’g 17 No. A 208 752 791 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Nov. 14, 2017). We assume 18 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 19 procedural history. 20 We review both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions “for the sake 21 of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 22 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of 23 review are well established. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 24 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing factual findings for 2 1 substantial evidence and questions of law and application of 2 law to facts de novo); Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 3 276, 282–83 (2d Cir. 2006) (applying substantial evidence 4 standard to nexus determination); Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. 5 Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020) (applying substantial evidence standard 6 to review of CAT claim). “[T]he administrative findings …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals