Illescas Castro v. Sessions

16-895 Illescas Castro v. Sessions BIA Straus, IJ A088 445 133 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 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 17th day of November, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 FAUSTO ENRIQUEZ ILLESCAS CASTRO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-895 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Osakwe, Hartford, CT. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 26 Assistant Attorney General; Jesse 27 Matthew Bless, Senior Litigation 28 Counsel; Barbara Joan Leen, Trial 29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation, United States 31 Department of Justice, Washington, 32 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 is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Fausto Enriquez Illescas Castro (“Castro”), a 6 native and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a March 16, 2016, 7 decision of the BIA affirming an October 23, 2014, decision of 8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Castro’s application for 9 withholding of removal. In re Fausto Enriquez Illescas Castro, 10 No. A088 445 133 (B.I.A. March 16, 2016), aff’g No. A088 445 11 133 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Oct. 23, 2014). We assume the 12 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 13 history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the 15 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA—that is, without regard 16 to the IJ’s determination regarding credibility. Xue Hong Yang 17 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 18 applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 19 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d 20 Cir. 2014). 21 To establish eligibility for withholding of removal based 22 on membership in a particular social group, an applicant must 23 establish both that the group is legally cognizable, 2 1 Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70, 72-73 (2d Cir. 2007), and 2 that the applicant has suffered past persecution or has 3 ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals