20-1828 Bustamante-Romero v. Garland BIA Connelly, IJ A206 653 426 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 14th day of March, two thousand 4 twenty-three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GERARD E. LYNCH, 8 MICHAEL H. PARK, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 DOLORES BUSTAMANTE-ROMERO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-1828 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 1 FOR PETITIONER: Jose Perez, Esq., Syracuse, NY. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 4 General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant 5 Director; Dana M. Camilleri, Trial Attorney, 6 Office of Immigration Litigation, United States 7 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 10 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 11 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Dolores Bustamante-Romero, a native and citizen of Mexico, 13 seeks review of a May 13, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming a May 8, 2018, 14 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, 15 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Dolores 16 Bustamante-Romero, No. A206 653 426 (B.I.A. May 13, 2020), aff’g No. A206 653 426 17 (Immig. Ct. Batavia May 8, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 18 underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the 20 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan 21 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We address only the denial of 22 withholding of removal and CAT relief because Bustamante-Romero did not 2 1 exhaust a challenge to the IJ’s denial of her asylum claim as time barred. See Lin 2 Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 480 F.3d 104, 123 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that 3 “usually . . . issues not raised to the BIA will not be examined by the reviewing 4 court”). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 5 § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 6 reasonable …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals