19-1643 Carcamo-Ayala v. Garland BIA Vomacka, IJ A206 359 498/499/500 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 13th day of October, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _________________________________________ 12 13 MARTHA YANIRA CARCAMO-AYALA, YANIRA 14 ALEXANDRA CRUZ-CARCAMO, JHOAN STIVEN 15 CRUZ-CARCAMO, 16 Petitioners, 17 18 v. 19-1643 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _________________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONERS: H. Raymond Fasano, Esq., Youman, 26 Madeo & Fasano, LLP, New York, 27 NY. 28 29 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 30 General; Jessica E. Burns, Senior 31 Litigation Counsel; John B. Holt, 1 Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioners Martha Yanira Carcamo-Ayala, Yanira 11 Alexandra Cruz-Carcamo, and Jhoan Stiven Cruz-Carcamo, 12 natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a May 13 10, 2019, decision of the BIA affirming a December 20, 2017, 14 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum and 15 withholding of removal. In re Martha Yanira Carcamo-Ayala, 16 et al., Nos. A206 359 498/499/500 (B.I.A. May 10, 2019), 17 aff’g Nos. A206 359 498/499/500 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 18 20, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 19 underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 21 BIA, i.e., minus the adverse credibility determination that 22 the BIA declined to reach. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t 23 of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 24 applicable standards of review are well established. See 25 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 2 1 195 (2d Cir. 2014). 2 An applicant for asylum and withholding of removal must 3 establish a nexus between the harm she suffered and fears 4 and her “race, religion, nationality, membership in a 5 particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals