Castillo-Garcia v. Sessions

17-275 Castillo-Garcia v. Sessions BIA A089 082 710 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 25th day of June, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 WILLIAMS CASTILLO-GARCIA, AKA 14 WILLIAMS CASTILLO, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-275 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Michael P. Diraimondo, Melville, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Claire L. 29 Workman, Jessica E. Burns, Senior 30 Litigation Counsel, Office of 31 Immigration Litigation, United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Williams Castillo-Garcia, a native and 9 citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a December 29, 2016, 10 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re 11 Williams Castillo-Garcia, No. A 089 082 710 (B.I.A. Dec. 29, 12 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 We have reviewed the BIA’s denial of Castillo-Garcia’s 15 motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. Gonzales, 16 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). Motions to reopen, 17 including those based on ineffective assistance of counsel 18 or changed country conditions, must establish the movant’s 19 prima facie eligibility for any relief sought. See INS v. 20 Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988); Poradisova v. Gonzales, 420 21 F.3d 70, 78 (2d Cir. 2005) (changed country conditions); 22 Rabiu v. INS, 41 F.3d 879, 882 (2d Cir. 1994) (ineffective 23 assistance). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in 24 denying reopening because Castillo-Garcia did not establish 2 1 his prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of 2 removal, or CAT relief. 3 I. Asylum and Withholding of Removal 4 For asylum and withholding of removal, an “applicant 5 must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership 6 in a particular social group, or ...

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