18-3431 Espinoza-Tenelcia v. Barr BIA Nelson, IJ A205 523 795 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 23rd day of December, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 DIANNA CORLINA ESPINOZA- 14 TENELCIA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-3431 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Usman B. Ahmad, Long Island City, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 28 General; M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, 1 Senior Litigation Counsel; Margot 2 P. Kniffin, Trial Attorney, Office 3 of Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC. 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 Dianna Corlina Espinoza-Tenelcia, a native 11 and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a November 1, 2018, 12 decision of the BIA affirming an October 4, 2017, decision of 13 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Espinoza-Tenelcia’s 14 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 15 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 16 Espinoza-Tenelcia, No. A 205 523 795 (B.I.A. Nov. 1, 2018), 17 aff’g No. A 205 523 795 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 4, 2017). 18 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 19 and procedural history. 20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and 21 supplemented by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 22 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. 23 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 24 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 2 1 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2 2013). 3 Asylum and Withholding of Removal 4 An applicant for asylum or withholding of removal carries 5 the burden to demonstrate that she has experienced, or has a 6 well-founded fear of experiencing, harm inflicted by either 7 the government or by private parties that the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals