Barahona v. Garland

20-3063 Barahona v. Garland BIA Auh, IJ A205 309 979 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 2nd day of August, two thousand twenty- 4 three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 8 EUNICE C. LEE, 9 SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 FRANKLIN ARIEL MEJIA BARAHONA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-3063 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 1 FOR PETITIONER: John H. Peng, Esq.; Karen Murtagh, Executive 2 Director, Prisoners’ Legal Services of New 3 York, Albany, NY. 4 5 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Assistant Attorney General; 6 Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director; Tim 7 Ramnitz, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of 8 Immigration Litigation, United States 9 Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 11 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 12 DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. 13 Petitioner Franklin Ariel Mejia Barahona, a native and citizen of Honduras, 14 seeks review of an August 10, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming a February 13, 15 2020 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for protection 16 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Franklin Ariel Mejia 17 Barahona, No. A205 309 979 (B.I.A. Aug. 10, 2020), aff’g No. A205 309 979 (Immigr. 18 Ct. Fishkill Feb. 13, 2020). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 19 facts and procedural history. 20 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as 21 supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 22 2005). We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings 2 1 for substantial evidence. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020); 2 Quintanilla-Mejia v. Garland, 3 F.4th 569, 583 (2d Cir. 2021). 3 An applicant for CAT protection has the burden of showing that he would 4 “more likely than not” be tortured by or with the acquiescence of government 5 officials. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.17(a), 1208.18(a)(1); Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 6 361 F.3d 161, 170–71 (2d Cir. 2004). In assessing whether an applicant …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals