15-2210 Hernandez v. Barr BIA Vomacka, IJ A073 644 702 A200 816 645/650/651 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 5th day of April, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 VIDAL A. HERNANDEZ, JOSE VIDAL 14 HERNANDEZ-CLAROS, MARIA DEL 15 ROSARIO HERNANDEZ-CLAROS, 16 ROSARIO CLAROS-de HERNANDEZ, 17 Petitioners, 18 19 v. 15-2210 20 NAC 21 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 22 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 27 FOR PETITIONERS: Bruno J. Bembi, Hempstead, NY. 28 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Leslie McKay, 3 Senior Litigation Counsel; 4 Madeline Henley, Attorney, Office 5 of Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, DC. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 12 is DENIED. 13 Lead petitioner Rosario Claros-de Hernandez 14 (“Hernandez”), her husband Vidal A. Hernandez, and their 15 children Jose Vidal Hernandez-Claros and Maria del Rosario 16 Hernandez-Claros, natives and citizen of El Salvador, seek 17 review of a June 30, 2015, decision of the BIA affirming a 18 November 6, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 19 denying Hernandez’s application for asylum, withholding of 20 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 21 (“CAT”).1 In re Vidal A. Hernandez, et al., Nos. A 073 644 1 In 2013, Vidal Hernandez’s removal proceedings were consolidated with his wife’s and children’s proceedings. He and the children proceeded only as derivative applicants on Hernandez’s asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3). 2 1 702, A200 816 645/650/651 (B.I.A. June 30, 2015), aff’g No. 2 A 073 644 702 , A200 816 645/650/651 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 3 Nov. 6, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 4 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 5 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 6 BIA, reaching only the nexus determination and denial of 7 CAT relief. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 8 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals