18-2363 Guaman Minchala v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A206 372 568 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 22nd day of October, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 STALIN GUAMAN MINCHALA, AKA 14 CESAR ARMANDO RAMOS, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-2363 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Glenn L. Formica, New Haven, CT. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Anthony P. 28 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 29 Ilana J. Snyder, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of 32 Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Stalin Guaman Minchala, a native and citizen 6 of Ecuador, seeks review of a July 11, 2018, decision of the 7 BIA affirming a September 7, 2017, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying Guaman Minchala’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Stalin Guaman 11 Minchala, No. A 206 372 568 (B.I.A. July 11, 2018), aff’g No. 12 A 206 372 568 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Sept. 7, 2017). We assume 13 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 14 procedural history in this case. 15 As an initial matter, we grant Guaman Minchala’s motion 16 for in forma pauperis status and deny the Government’s motion 17 for summary denial because the petition for review is not 18 frivolous. See Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 15-17 (2d Cir. 19 1995). However, because Guaman Minchala has filed his brief, 20 we treat the Government’s motion as its brief and deny the 21 petition on the merits. 2 1 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 2 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 3 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 4 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals