Lemus-De Umana v. Sessions

16-121 Lemus-de Umana v. Sessions BIA Nelson, IJ A 206 791 253 / 254 / 255 / 256 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 1st day of November, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ELBIA NOEMI LEMUS-DE UMANA, KAREN 14 JULISSA UMANA-LEMUS, OSCAR 15 LEONIDAS UMANA-LEMUS, and YEIMI 16 LISSETH UMANA-LEMUS, 17 Petitioners, 18 19 v. 16-121 20 NAC 21 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 22 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 27 FOR PETITIONERS: Judy Resnick, Far Rockaway, NY. 28 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 2 Assistant Attorney General; Shelley 3 R. Goad, Assistant Director; Julia 4 J. Tyler, Trial Attorney, Office of 5 Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, DC. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 12 DENIED. 13 Petitioner Elbia Noemi Lemus-de Umana (“Umana”) and her 14 minor children, Karen Julissa, Oscar Leonidas, and Yeimi 15 Lisseth Umana-Lemus, all natives and citizens of El Salvador, 16 seek review of a December 15, 2015, decision of the BIA affirming 17 a July 13, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 18 Umana’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 19 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 20 Elbia Noemi Lemus-de Umana, Karen Julissa Umana-Lemus, Oscar 21 Leonidas Umana-Lemus, and Yeimi Lisseth Umana-Lemus, Nos. A206 22 791 253/254/255/256 (B.I.A. Dec. 15, 2015), aff’g Nos. A206 791 23 253/254/255/256 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 13, 2015). We 24 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 25 procedural history in this case. 2 1 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 2 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 3 Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 4 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 5 § 1252(b)(4); Gjolaj v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration 6 Servs., 468 F.3d 140, 142 (2d Cir. 2006). Petitioners ...

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