19-4040 Guartazaca v. Garland BIA Wright, IJ A088 440 840 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 23rd day of February, two thousand 4 twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CARLOS GUARTAZACA, AKA CARLOS 14 UMBENO GUARTAZA QUINONES, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-4040 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 1 _____________________________________ 2 3 FOR PETITIONER: Edgar L. Fankbonner, New York, NY. 4 5 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant 6 Attorney General; Stephen J. Flynn, 7 Assistant Director; Lynda A. Do, Trial 8 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 9 United States Department of Justice, 10 Washington, DC. 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 12 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 13 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 14 Petitioner Carlos Guartazaca, a native and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review 15 of a November 7, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a March 14, 2018 decision of 16 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying withholding of removal and relief under the 17 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Carlos Guartazaca, No. A 088 440 840 18 (B.I.A. Nov. 7, 2019), aff’g No. A 088 440 840 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 14, 2018). 19 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 20 history. 21 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the 22 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); 23 Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s 2 1 factual findings for substantial evidence, and we review questions of law de novo. 2 See Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). 3 An applicant for withholding of removal must show that his “life or 4 freedom would be threatened in th[e] country [of removal] because of . . . race, 5 religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political 6 opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). We find no error in the agency’s conclusion 7 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals