21-6022 Cespedes v. Garland BIA Roach, IJ A201 580 336 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 twenty- 4 three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GERARD E. LYNCH, 8 MICHAEL H. PARK, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 IRVIN ACAPHELUS CESPEDES, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 21-6022 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Craig Relles, Esq., White Plains, NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 2 General; Anthony C. Payne, Assistant 3 Director; Neelam Ihsanullah, Trial Attorney, 4 Office of Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 8 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 9 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Irvin Acaphelus Cespedes, a native and citizen of Jamaica, seeks 11 review of a December 15, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming an August 18, 2020, 12 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for withholding 13 of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Irvin 14 Acaphelus Cespedes, No. A201 580 336 (B.I.A. Dec. 15, 2020), aff’g No. A201 580 336 15 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 18, 2020). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16 underlying facts and procedural history. 17 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as 18 supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 19 2005). We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings 20 for substantial evidence. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 21 2009). 2 1 A. Withholding of Removal 2 To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, an applicant must show 3 that he “will more likely than not” be persecuted “on account of race, religion, 4 nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 5 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(iii), (2); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). The agency here 6 reasonably found that Cespedes failed to establish that he was or likely would …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals