18-3718 Coronado v. Garland BIA Thompson, IJ A205 709 724 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 18th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 RENE SANDOVAL CORONADO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3718 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY. 25 1Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted for Attorney General William P. Barr. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Brianne Whelan 3 Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel; 4 Lindsay Corliss, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Rene Sandoval Coronado, a native and citizen 13 of Guatemala, seeks review of a November 15, 2018, decision 14 of the BIA affirming an October 16, 2017, decision of an 15 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Coronado’s application for 16 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 17 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Rene Sandoval 18 Coronado, No. A 205 709 724 (B.I.A. Nov. 15, 2018), aff’g No. 19 A 205 709 724 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 16, 2017). We 20 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 21 procedural history. 22 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for 23 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 24 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable 25 standards of review are well established. See Y.C. v. 2 1 Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (reviewing factual 2 findings for substantial evidence and questions of law and 3 the application of law to undisputed facts de novo). 4 To establish asylum eligibility, an applicant must show 5 that he has suffered past persecution, or has a well-founded 6 fear of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals