18-1816 Ayala Vasquez v. Barr BIA Connelly, IJ A209 836 920 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 3rd day of November, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR. 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 NELSON ABDULIO AYALA VASQUEZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-1816 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Ronald D. Richey, Esq., 24 Rockville, MD. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; Daniel 28 E. Goldman, Senior Litigation 29 Counsel; Andrea N. Gevas, Trial 30 Attorney, Office of Immigration 31 Litigation, United States 1 Department of Justice, Washington, 2 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 Nelson Abdulio Ayala Vasquez, a native and 9 citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a May 18, 2018 10 decision of the BIA affirming a September 19, 2017 decision 11 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for 12 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 13 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Nelson Abdulio 14 Ayala Vasquez, No. A209 836 920 (B.I.A. May 18, 2018), aff’g 15 No. A209 836 920 (Immig. Ct. Batavia Sept. 19, 2017). We 16 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 17 procedural history. 18 We have considered the opinions of both the IJ and the 19 BIA “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 20 Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 21 applicable standards of review are well established. See 22 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 23 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 24 An applicant for asylum or for withholding of removal 2 1 may sustain his burden of proof on the basis of his testimony 2 alone “only if the applicant’s testimony is credible, is 3 persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to 4 demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee.” 8 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals