16-2669 Gomez-Domingo v. Sessions BIA Verrillo, IJ A202 010 520/519/518 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 19th day of September, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., RICHARD C. WESLEY, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ LUCRESIA GOMEZ-DOMINGO, RICKY VELAZQUEZ-GOMEZ, PRINCE VELAZQUEZ-GOMEZ, Petitioners, v. 16-2669 NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Jon E. Jessen, Stamford, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: Jody Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director; Joanna L. Watson, 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. Lead petitioner Lucresia Gomez-Domingo and her sons Ricky Velasquez-Gomez and Prince Velasquez-Gomez, natives and citizens of Guatemala, seek review of a July 7, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a March 9, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Gomez-Domingo’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Gomez- Domingo et al., Nos. A 202 010 520/519/518 (B.I.A. July 7, 2016), aff’g Nos. A 202 010 520/519/518 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Mar. 9, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. “Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning and offers additional commentary, we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA.” Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (holding that we “review de novo the legal determination of whether a group constitutes a 2 ‘particular social group’”); Joaquin-Porras v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 172, 181 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing denial of CAT relief for substantial evidence). Asylum & Withholding of Removal To qualify for asylum or withholding of removal, an applicant must establish that “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” was or will be at least one central reason for the claimed persecution. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A). To constitute a particular social ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals