18-1505 Debon-Ramos v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A208 900 281 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 4th day of November, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 DORA LINDA DEBON-RAMOS, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-1505 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Robert C. Ross, West Haven, CT. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Linda S. 28 Wernery, Assistant Director; 29 Janice K. Redfern, Senior 1 Litigation Counsel, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Dora Linda Debon-Ramos, a native and citizen 11 of Honduras, seeks review of an April 18, 2018, decision of 12 the BIA affirming a July 10, 2017, decision of an Immigration 13 Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, withholding 14 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 15 (“CAT”). In re Dora Linda Debon-Ramos, No. A208 900 281 16 (B.I.A. Apr. 18, 2018), aff’g No. A208 900 281 (Immig. Ct. 17 Hartford July 10, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity 18 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 20 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 21 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 22 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review 23 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka 24 v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). Because Debon- 25 Ramos expressly abandons her CAT claim, the only issue before 2 1 us is whether the agency properly denied asylum and 2 withholding of removal based on its finding that she was not 3 a member of her proposed particular social group of Honduran 4 women unable to leave domestic relationships. See Yueqing 5 Zhang ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals