19-2490 Bonilla-Sorto v. Garland BIA Donnolo, IJ A206 844 586/587/588 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 14th day of March, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, REENA RAGGI, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ FLOR DEL CARMEN BONILLA-SORTO, MELISSA GISSELLE RIOS-BONILLA, STEVEN DANIEL RIOS-BONILLA, Petitioners, v. 19-2490 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Esq., Hempstead, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel; Sarah K. Pergolizzi, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Flor Del Carmen Bonilla-Sorto and her two children, all natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a July 24, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a January 18, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Flor Del Carmen Bonilla-Sorto, et al., Nos. A 206 844 586/587/588 (B.I.A. July 24, 2019), aff’g No. A 206 844 586/587/588 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Jan. 18, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards 2 of review are well established. See Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law and application of law to fact de novo). Bonilla-Sorto 1 alleged that gang members were singling out members of her family for persecution and torture. We find no error in the agency’s denial of relief. As to asylum and withholding of removal, Bonilla-Sorto had the burden to show both that she is a member of a cognizable particular social group and that her purported persecutors were motivated to harm her on account of her membership in that group. Paloka, 762 F.3d at 195. Bonilla- …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals