Buestan-Tenecora v. Sessions

16-891 Buestan-Tenecora v. Sessions BIA Nelson, IJ A205 480 111 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 21st day of December, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 LAURA INES BUESTAN-TENECORA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-891 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Manuel D. Gomez, Manuel D. Gomez & 24 Associates, P.C., New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 27 Deputy Assistant Attorney 28 General; Kiley Kane, Senior 1 Litigation Counsel; Sergio 2 Sarkany, Trial Attorney, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board 8 of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, 9 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Laura Ines Buestan-Tenecora, a native and 11 citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a February 24, 2016, decision 12 of the BIA affirming a September 11, 2014, decision of an 13 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Buestan-Tenecora’s 14 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under 15 the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Laura Ines 16 Buestan-Tenecora, No. A205 480 111 (B.I.A. Feb. 24, 2016), aff’g 17 No. A205 480 111 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 11, 2014). We assume 18 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 19 procedural history in this case. 20 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the 21 IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. 22 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 23 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 24 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d 25 Cir. 2009). 2 1 An asylum applicant bears the burden of establishing that 2 she suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of 3 future persecution in the country of removal on account of a 4 protected ground. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); Mei Fun Wong v. 5 Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 68 (2d ...

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