17-4110 Banegas-Suquilanda v. Barr BIA Segal, IJ A206 505 952 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 8th day of October, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 BLANCA YOLANDA BANEGAS- 14 SUQUILANDA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-4110 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Manuel D. Gomez, Esq., New York, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Neelam Ihsanullah, Trial Attorney; 28 Anthony C. Payne, Assistant 1 Director; Joseph H. Hunt, 2 Assistant Attorney General, Office 3 of 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 Blanca Yolanda Banegas-Suquilanda, a native 11 and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a BIA decision 12 affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 13 Banegas-Suquilanda’s application for asylum, withholding of 14 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 15 (“CAT”). In re Banegas-Suquilanda, No. A 206 505 952 (B.I.A. 16 Nov. 30, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 505 952 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. 17 City Mar. 8, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 18 the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and 20 supplemented by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 21 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. 22 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards 23 of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 24 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 2 1 (2d Cir. 2018). The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality 2 of the circumstances . . . base a credibility determination 3 on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s 4 written and oral statements . . . , the internal consistency 5 of each such statement, the consistency of such statements 6 with other evidence ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals