20-4163 Gregorio-Lopez v. Garland BIA Ruehle, IJ A206 003 987 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 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 11th day of April, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 EUNICE C. LEE, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 MAINOR MAURICIO GREGORIO-LOPEZ, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-4163 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Samuel Iroegbu, Albany, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Mary Jane 28 Dandaux, Assistant Director; 1 Nicole J. Thomas-Dorris, Trial 2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 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 Mainor Mauricio Gregorio-Lopez, a native and 11 citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a November 30, 2020 12 decision of the BIA affirming a November 20, 2018 decision of 13 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that denied his application for 14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mainor Mauricio 16 Gregorio-Lopez, No. A 206 003 987 (B.I.A. Nov. 30, 2020), 17 aff’g No. A 206 003 987 (Immigr. Ct. Buffalo Nov. 20, 2018). 18 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 19 and procedural history. 20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 21 BIA, i.e., minus the adverse credibility determination that 22 the BIA did not affirm. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 23 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 24 standards of review are well established. “[T]he 2 1 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 2 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 3 contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Thus, “we review the 4 agency’s decision for substantial evidence and must defer to 5 the factfinder’s findings based on such relevant evidence as 6 a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 7 conclusion. . . . By contrast, we …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals