19-1211 Contreras-Gonzalez v. Barr BIA Kolbe, IJ A216 473 512 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 22nd day of December, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GERARD E. LYNCH, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ARGENIS CONTRERAS-GONZALEZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-1211 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Marisol Conde-Hernandez, Law 24 Office of Eric M. Mark, Newark, 25 NJ. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; 1 Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant 2 Director; Ilana J. Snyder, Trial 3 Attorney, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Argenis Contreras-Gonzalez, a native and 12 citizen of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of a April 8, 13 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a October 24, 2018 decision 14 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Contreras-Gonzalez’s 15 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 16 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Argenis 17 Contreras-Gonzalez, No. A 216 473 512 (B.I.A. Apr. 8, 2019), 18 aff’g No. A 216 473 512 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 24, 2018). 19 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 20 and procedural history in this case. 21 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented and 22 modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 23 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. 24 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards 2 1 of review are well-established. See 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 3 2013). 4 The agency reasonably concluded that Contreras-Gonzalez 5 was barred from asylum and withholding of removal. An alien 6 is ineligible for these forms of relief if “there are serious 7 reasons for believing that the alien has committed a serious 8 nonpolitical ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals