18-3125 Gonzalez-Aucay v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A208 538 178 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 21st day of April, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 Chief Judge, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 HENRY VINICIO GONZALEZ-AUCAY, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-3125 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Osakwe, Esq., Hartford, 25 CT. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 28 General; Derek C. Julius, 1 Assistant Director; Zoe J. Heller, 2 Trial Attorney, Office of 3 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 Henry Vinicio Gonzalez-Aucay, a native and 11 citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a 2018 decision of the 12 BIA affirming a 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 13 denying Gonzalez-Aucay’s application for asylum, withholding 14 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 15 (“CAT”). In re Henry Vinicio Gonzalez-Aucay, No. A 208 538 16 178 (B.I.A. Sept. 24, 2018), aff’g No. A 208 538 178 (Immig. 17 Ct. Hartford Sept. 11, 2017). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history, 19 to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision 20 to deny the petition. 21 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for 22 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 23 Sec., Immigration & Customs Enf’t, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 24 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 2 1 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. 2 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse 3 credibility determination under a substantial evidence 4 standard). 5 “Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all 6 relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility 7 determination on . . . the consistency between the applicant’s 8 . . ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals