18-1674 Barrios Roblero v. Barr BIA Ruehle, IJ A205 152 943 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 20th day of March, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JESUS MANUEL BARRIOS ROBLERO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-1674 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Samuel N. Iroegbu, Albany, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 26 General; Jessica E. Burns, Senior 27 Litigation Counsel; Don G. 28 Scroggin, Trial Attorney, Office 1 of Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 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 Jesus Manuel Barrios Roblero, a native and 9 citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a May 8, 2018, decision of 10 the BIA affirming a July 10, 2017, decision of an Immigration 11 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding 12 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 13 (“CAT”). In re Barrios Roblero, No. A 205 152 943 (B.I.A. 14 May 8, 2018), aff’g No. A 205 152 943 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo July 15 10, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 17 We have considered the IJ’s decision as supplemented and 18 modified by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 19 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are 20 well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. 21 Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (“Courts review de 22 novo the legal determination of whether a group constitutes 23 a ‘particular social group’ under the [Immigration and 2 1 Nationality Act].”); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 2 513, 516 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing denial of CAT protection 3 under the substantial evidence standard). 4 Asylum and Withholding of Removal 5 To establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of 6 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals