Jacobo-Melendres v. Sessions

16-1284 Jacobo-Melendres v. Sessions BIA Straus, IJ A205 412 174 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 October , two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 GILDA JACOBO-MELENDRES, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-1284 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jon E. Jessen, Stamford, CT. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Keith I. McManus, 27 Assistant Director; Jessica E. 28 Burns, Senior Litigation Counsel, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of Justice, 31 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 is 4 DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. 5 Petitioner Gilda Jacobo-Melendres, a native and citizen of 6 Guatemala, seeks review of a March 24, 2016 decision of the BIA 7 affirming a September 29, 2014 decision of an Immigration Judge 8 (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under 9 the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Gilda 10 Jacobo-Melendres, No. A205 412 174 (B.I.A. Mar. 24, 2016), aff’g 11 No. A205 412 174 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Sept. 29, 2014). We 12 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 13 procedural history in this case. 14 We have reviewed the decision of the IJ as supplemented by 15 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 16 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 17 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. 18 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency did not 19 err in finding that Jacobo-Melendres failed to satisfy her 20 burden of proof for asylum and withholding of removal, but it 21 did err by failing to fully consider evidence material to her 22 CAT claim. 2 1 Asylum and Withholding of Removal 2 In order to demonstrate eligibility for asylum and 3 withholding of removal, “the applicant must establish that 4 ...

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