20-712 Cadmelema-Morocho v. Garland BIA Brennan, IJ A208 912 062/208 782 488 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 17th day of May, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 MICHAEL H. PARK, 8 BETH ROBINSON, 9 MYRNA PÉREZ, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 EDWIN F. CADMELEMA-MOROCHO, 14 JESSICA MARIANA SUMBA-VELECELA, 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 20-712 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Borja, Esq., Jackson 25 Heights, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; John 1 W. Blakeley, Assistant Director; 2 Elizabeth K. Fitzgerald-Sambou, 3 Trial Attorney, Office of 4 Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioners Edwin F. Cadmelema-Morocho and Jessica 12 Mariana Sumba-Velecela, natives and citizens of Ecuador, seek 13 review of a February 6, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming an 14 April 10, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 15 asylum and withholding of removal. In re Cadmelema-Morocho, 16 No. A 208 912 062/208 782 488 (B.I.A. Feb. 6, 2020), aff’g 17 No. A 208 912 062/208 782 488 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Apr. 10, 18 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 19 underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and 21 supplemented by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 22 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. 23 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 24 standards of review are well established. See Paloka v. 2 1 Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (reviewing factual 2 findings for substantial evidence and questions of law and 3 application of law to undisputed facts de novo). 4 To demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of 5 removal, “the applicant must establish that race, religion, 6 nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 7 political opinion was or will be at …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals