19-3423 Leiva-Argueta v. Garland BIA Nelson, IJ A205 955 828/829 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 25th day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HENSSER OSEAS LEIVA-ARGUETA, 14 EDWIN ADRIAN ARGUETA 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 19-3423 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONERS: Daniel Spensieri, Esq., White 25 Plains, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Anthony P. 1 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 2 Joanna L. Watson., Trial Attorney, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, 4 United States Department of 5 Justice, Washington, DC. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 10 Petitioners, Hensser Oseas Leiva Argueta and his brother 11 Edwin Adrian Argueta, natives and citizens of Guatemala, seek 12 review of a September 25, 2019, decision of the BIA affirming 13 a February 28, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 14 denying their applications for asylum, withholding of 15 removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 16 (“CAT”). In re Hensser Oseas Leiva-Argueta, Edwin Adrian 17 Argueta, Nos. A205 955 828/829 (B.I.A. Sept. 25, 2019), aff’g 18 Nos. A205 955 828/829 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 28, 2018). 19 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 20 and procedural history. 21 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. 22 See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 23 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 24 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 2 1 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (reviewing factual findings 2 for substantial evidence and questions of law, including 3 whether a proposed group is cognizable, de novo); Gjolaj v. 4 Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 468 F.3d 140, 143 5 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing nexus determination for substantial 6 evidence). 7 We deny the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals