19-2674 Lemus-Landaverde v. Garland BIA Farber, IJ A202 125 746 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 29th day of October, two thousand twenty- 5 one. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 JOSE EDUARDO LEMUS-LANDAVERDE, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-2674 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Abdolreza Mazaheri, Sethi & 25 Mazaheri, LLC, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 28 General; Anthony B. Nicastro, 1 Assistant Director; Timothy Bo 2 Stanton, Trial Attorney, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 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 DENIED. 10 Petitioner Jose Eduardo Lemus-Landaverde, a native and 11 citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a July 25, 2019, 12 decision of the BIA affirming a February 5, 2019, decision of 13 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 14 removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 15 (“CAT”). In re Jose Eduardo Lemus-Landaverde, No. A 202 125 16 746 (B.I.A. July 25, 2019), aff’g No. A 202 125 746 (Immig. 17 Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 5, 2019). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 20 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 21 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review 22 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“The 23 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 24 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 2 1 contrary.”); Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) 2 (reviewing agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual 3 finds under the substantial evidence standard). Because 4 Lemus-Landaverde did not exhaust his challenges to the IJ’s 5 denial of a continuance or the IJ’s denial of his claims for 6 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals