20-205 Herrera-Figueroa v. Garland BIA Hochul, IJ A202 138 702/703 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 4th day of April, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 BETH ROBINSON, 9 MYRNA PÉREZ, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ANA MARIA HERRERA-FIGUEROA, 14 LLANY BERENICE ESCALANTE- 15 HERRERA, 16 Petitioners, 17 18 v. 20-205 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONERS: Jose Perez, Esq., Syracuse, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; 1 Bernard A. Joseph, Senior 2 Litigation Counsel; Katherine A. 3 Smith, Trial Attorney, Office of 4 Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioners Ana Maria Herrera-Figueroa and her daughter 12 Llany Berenice Escalante-Herrera, natives and citizens of 13 Guatemala, seek review of a December 18, 2019, decision of 14 the BIA affirming a March 20, 2018, decision of an Immigration 15 Judge (“IJ”), denying their applications for asylum, 16 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 17 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ana Maria Herrera-Figueroa, 18 Llany Berenice Escalante-Herrera, Nos. A 202 138 702/703 19 (B.I.A. Dec. 18, 2019), aff’g Nos. A 202 138 702/703 (Immig. 20 Ct. Buffalo Mar. 20, 2018). We assume the parties’ 21 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 22 in this case. 23 Issues Before This Court 24 We have considered the IJ’s decision as modified by the 2 1 BIA, i.e., minus the arguments for denying relief that the 2 BIA did not reach. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 3 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review 4 questions of law de novo. See Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 5 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). We review findings of fact for 6 substantial evidence, “treating them as ‘conclusive unless 7 any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude the 8 contrary[.]’” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). 9 Petitioners …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals