19-730 Escobar-Del Cid v. Garland BIA Douchy, IJ A208 562 781 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 9th day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 EDVIN MAURICIO ESCOBAR-DEL CID, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-730 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Anne Pilsbury, Esq., Heather Y. 24 Axford, Esq., Central American 25 Legal Assistance, Brooklyn, NY. 26 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 2 General, Leslie McKay, Greg D. 3 Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, 4 Office of Immigration Litigation, 5 United States Department of 6 Justice, Washington, 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 Edvin Mauricio Escobar-Del Cid, a native and 12 citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a February 27, 2019 13 decision of the BIA affirming a December 11, 2017 decision of 14 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for 15 asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 16 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Edvin Mauricio 17 Escobar-Del Cid, No. A 208 562 781 (B.I.A. Feb. 27, 2019), 18 aff’g No. A 208 562 781 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Dec. 11, 2017). 19 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 20 and procedural history. 21 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions 22 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 23 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 24 applicable standards of review are well established. See 2 1 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 2 (2d Cir. 2014) (reviewing factual findings for substantial 3 evidence and questions of law de novo). An asylum applicant 4 must show that he has suffered past persecution, or has a 5 well-founded fear of future persecution, on …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals