20-3042 Armas-Armas v. Garland BIA Laforest, IJ A206 373 541 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. 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 1st day of August, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 ALISON J. NATHAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 SEGUNDO PABLO ARMAS-ARMAS, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-3042 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Borja, Esq., Jackson 25 Heights, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Bernard A. 1 Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel; 2 Enitan O. Otunla, Trial Attorney, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, 4 United States Department of 5 Justice, 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 Segundo Pablo Armas-Armas, a native and 11 citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of an August 10, 2020 12 decision of the BIA affirming a September 4, 2018 decision of 13 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for 14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Segundo Pablo 16 Armas-Armas, No. A 206 373 541 (B.I.A. Aug. 10, 2020), aff’g 17 No. A 206 373 541 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 4, 2018). We 18 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 19 procedural history. 20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 21 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 22 Cir. 2005). We review factual findings for substantial 23 evidence and questions of law de novo. See Paloka v. Holder, 24 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). “[T]he administrative 2 1 findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable 2 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 3 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 4 We deny the petition because the record supports the 5 agency’s conclusion that conditions in Ecuador have changed 6 such that Armas-Armas no longer has a well-founded fear of 7 persecution or torture, and he has both failed …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals