18-3719 Giron v. Garland BIA Kolbe, IJ A216 333 740 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 7th day of July, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________ JESUS EDUARDO GIRON, AKA JESUS BAUTISTA GIRON, AKA JESUS GIRON BAULTISTA, AKA PECAS UNKNOWN, AKA LITTLE BOY UNKNOWN, AKA CHELE UNKNOWN, Petitioner, v. 18-3719 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _________________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Vilia B. Hayes, Dustin P. Smith, Carl W. Mills, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Song Park, Acting Assistant Director; Colin J. Tucker, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Petitioner Jesus Eduardo Giron, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a November 21, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a June 1, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jesus Eduardo Giron, No. A216 333 740 (B.I.A. Nov. 21, 2018), aff’g No. A216 333 740 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. June 1, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the findings that the BIA did not reach. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 2 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). The issues before us are whether Giron’s proposed social group of “witnesses who assisted law enforcement officials against violent gangs” is cognizable and whether he established that the government of El Salvador would acquiesce to his torture. For withholding of removal, an applicant must show he would “more likely than not” be persecuted “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1), (2); see also …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals