19-3656 Carrasco-Canales v. Garland BIA Loprest, IJ A077 406 820 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 20th day of May, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ORLIN ANTONIO CARRASCO-CANALES, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-3656 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Craig Relles, Esq., White Plains, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Mary Jane 28 Candaux, Assistant Director; 1 Stephen Finn, Trial Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Orlin Antonio Carrasco-Canales, a native and 10 citizen of Honduras, seeks review of an October 16, 2019, 11 decision of the BIA affirming an April 17, 2019, decision of 12 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for 13 withholding of removal and relief under the Convention 14 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Orlin Antonio Carrasco- 15 Canales, No. A077 406 820 (B.I.A. Oct. 16, 2019), aff’g No. 16 A077 406 820 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 17, 2019). We assume 17 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 18 procedural history. 19 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the decisions 20 of both the IJ and the BIA. See Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales, 21 494 F.3d 260, 262 (2d Cir. 2007). The applicable standards 22 of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 23 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2 1 2014) (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence 2 and questions of law de novo). Carrasco-Canales applied for 3 withholding of removal based on political opinion and 4 membership in a particular social group, and for CAT relief, 5 asserting that a Honduran crime family—the Acostas—threatened 6 him because he refused to sell them his livestock and because 7 they suspected him of having an affair with the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals