20-1369 Bonilla v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A201 127 178 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. 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 7th day of June, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ DUREL JORDON BONILLA, A.K.A. BONILLA DUREL, A.K.A. BONILA DUREL, Petitioner, v. 20-1369 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Zoey Jones and Edward McCarthy, Brooklyn Defender Services, Brooklyn, NY; Matthew T. Salzmann, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation Counsel; David Kim, 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 Durel Jordon Bonilla, a native and citizen of Belize, seeks review of an April 14, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming an October 17, 2019, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Durel Jordon Bonilla, No. A 201 127 178 (B.I.A. Apr. 14, 2020), aff’g No. A 201 127 178 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 17, 2019). We assume the reader’s familiarity with the record. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 2 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Bonilla asylum as an exercise of discretion. The agency considered the factors that favored a grant of asylum, including Bonilla’s sixteen years in the United States, his lawful entrance into the country, and his pursuit of permanent residency since his mother’s Violence Against Women Act application, as well as the negative factors of Bonilla’s criminal history and failure to take responsibility for his actions. See Wu Zheng Huang v. INS, 436 F.3d 89, 98 (2d Cir. 2006) (explaining that a discretionary decision on asylum requires …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals