17-870 Jara-Llivichuzca v. Sessions BIA Straus, IJ A206 689 908 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 20th day of August, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 OFELIA MARGARITA JARA- 14 LLIVICHUZCA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-870 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Osakwe, Hartford, CT. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; 28 Claire L. Workman, Senior 29 Litigation Counsel; Juria L. 30 Jones, Trial Attorney, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Ofelia Margarita Jara-Llivichuzca, a native 10 and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a March 2, 2017, 11 decision of the BIA affirming a June 13, 2016, decision of 12 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Jara-Llivichuzca’s 13 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 14 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ofelia 15 Margarita Jara-Llivichuzca, No. A206 689 908 (B.I.A. Mar. 16 2, 2017), aff’g No. A206 689 908 (Immig. Ct. Hartford June 17 13, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 18 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s 20 decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 21 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 22 applicable standards of review are well established. See 23 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 24 162, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 1 The governing REAL ID Act credibility standard provides 2 that the agency must “[c]onsider[] the totality of the 3 circumstances,” and may base a credibility finding on the 4 plausibility of an applicant’s account and inconsistencies 5 in her or her statements. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); 6 Xiu Xia Lin, 534 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals