20-837 Espinoza-Archipolla v. Garland BIA Thompson, IJ A206 727 030 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 11th day of February, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 Chief Judge, 10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 11 EUNICE C. LEE, 12 Circuit Judges. 13 _____________________________________ 14 15 DUBAR IVAN ESPINOZA-ARCHIPOLLA, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 20-837 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Borja, Esq., Borja Law 27 Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY. 28 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 2 Assistant Attorney General; 3 Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant 4 Director; Matthew B. George, 5 Senior Litigation Counsel, Office 6 of Immigration Litigation, United 7 States Department of Justice, 8 Washington, DC. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 12 is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Dubar Ivan Espinoza-Archipolla, a native and 14 citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a February 19, 2020, 15 decision of the BIA affirming an April 9, 2018, decision of 16 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 17 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 18 (“CAT”). In re Dubar Ivan Espinoza-Archipolla, No. A206 727 19 030 (B.I.A. Feb. 19, 2020), aff’g No. A206 727 030 (Immigr. 20 Ct. N.Y.C. Apr. 9, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 21 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 22 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision. See Mei Chai Ye v. 23 U.S. Dep’t of Just., 489 F.3d 517, 523 (2d Cir. 2007). We 24 review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence 25 and its legal conclusions de novo. See Paloka v. Holder, 762 2 1 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (“Courts review de novo the legal 2 determination of whether a group constitutes a ‘particular 3 social group’ under the [Immigration and Nationality Act].”); 4 Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 276, 281–83 (2d Cir. 2006) 5 (applying substantial evidence standard to nexus 6 determination); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513, 516 7 (2d Cir. 2009) (applying substantial evidence standard …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals