19-2850 Contreras Blanco v. Garland BIA Sagerman, IJ A062 316 109 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 August, two thousand twenty- 5 one. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 Chief Judge, 10 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 11 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 12 Circuit Judges. 13 _____________________________________ 14 15 STANLEY GIOVANNI CONTRERAS BLANCO, 16 AKA STANLEY G. BLANCO, 17 Petitioner, 18 19 v. 19-2850 20 NAC 21 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 22 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Rohmah A. Javed, Christine D. 27 McClellan, Joseph Moravec, John 28 Peng, Mary Slattery, Prisoners’ 29 Legal Services of New York, 30 Albany, NY. 31 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting 2 Assistant Attorney General; 3 Shelley R. Goad, Assistant 4 Director; Jennifer P. Levings, 5 Senior Litigation Counsel, Office 6 of Immigration Litigation, United 7 States Department of Justice, 8 Washington, DC. 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 13 is DENIED. 14 Stanley Giovanni Contreras Blanco, a native and citizen 15 of El Salvador, seeks review of a 2019 decision of the BIA 16 affirming an earlier decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 17 denying protection under the Convention Against Torture 18 (“CAT”). In re Stanley Giovanni Contreras Blanco, No. A062 19 316 109 (B.I.A. Aug. 12, 2019), aff’g No. A062 316 109 (Immig. 20 Ct. Napanoch Feb. 28, 2019). We assume the parties’ 21 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 22 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. 23 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 24 Cir. 2006). We have jurisdiction to review the agency’s 25 denial of relief under the CAT despite Contreras Blanco’s 26 order of removal on criminal grounds. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 2 1 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1694 (2020). The applicable standards of 2 review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); 3 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). The 4 agency did not err in finding that Contreras Blanco failed to 5 establish …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals