16-1474 Flores Anyosa v. Whitaker 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 for the Second Circuit, held at 2 the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 3 on the 17th day of December, two thousand eighteen. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 JON O. NEWMAN, 7 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _________________________________________ 11 12 CARLOS AUGUSTO FLORES ANYOSA, 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. No. 16-1474 16 17 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, 18 Acting Attorney General of the United States, 19 Respondent. 20 _________________________________________ 21 22 FOR PETITIONER: DAVID A. ISAACSON, Cyrus D. Mehta & 23 Partners PLLC, New York, New York. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: MATTHEW GEORGE, Trial Attorney 26 (Rebekah Nahas, Trial Attorney, on the 27 brief) for Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General, Civil Division, U.S. 29 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 30 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of the decision of the Board of Immigration 2 Appeals (“BIA”) dated April 13, 2016, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 3 AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 4 Petitioner Carlos Augusto Flores Anyosa (“Flores”), a native and citizen of Peru, 5 seeks review of an April 13, 2016 decision of the BIA affirming a September 9, 2014 6 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that denied Flores’s application for asylum, 7 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 8 Carlos Augusto Flores Anyosa, No. A 205 137 491 (B.I.A. Apr. 13, 2016), aff’g No. A 205 137 9 491 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 9, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 10 underlying facts, procedural history, and arguments on appeal, to which we refer only as 11 necessary to explain our decision to deny the petition for review. 12 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and BIA’s opinions “for 13 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). In the 14 proceedings before the IJ and the BIA, Flores bore the burden of establishing past 15 persecution or an objectively reasonable well-founded fear of future persecution. 16 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a), (b); Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 154 (2d 17 Cir. 2006). Because the IJ and the BIA found that Flores testified credibly in all respects, we ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals