22-6141 Dutan Vinuesa v. Garland BIA Kolbe, IJ A213 637 533 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 15th day of May, two thousand twenty- 4 three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JUAN DAVID DUTAN VINUESA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 22-6141 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Scott Coomes, Brooklyn Defender Services, 24 Brooklyn, NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 2 Attorney General; John S. Hogan, Assistant 3 Director; Todd J. Cochran, 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 Juan David Dutan Vinuesa, a native and citizen of Ecuador, seeks 11 review of a February 22, 2022 decision of the BIA affirming an August 5, 2021 12 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for relief under 13 the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Juan David Dutan Vinuesa, No. 14 A213 637 533 (B.I.A. Feb. 22, 2022), aff’g No. A213 637 533 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Aug. 15 5, 2021). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 16 procedural history. 17 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan 18 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s factual 19 findings for substantial evidence, and we review questions of law de novo. See 20 Quintanilla-Mejia v. Garland, 3 F.4th 569, 583 (2d Cir. 2021). We “uphold [the] 21 agency[’s] factfinding ‘unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to 2 1 conclude to the contrary.’” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). 2 I. CAT Relief 3 An applicant for protection under the CAT has the burden of demonstrating 4 that he will “more likely than not” be tortured. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). “In 5 considering a CAT claim, the agency properly considers ‘all evidence relevant to 6 the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals