17-735 (L) Lemus v. Barr BIA Wiesel, IJ A208 542 815/816/817 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 13th day of August, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MILVIA MARINA LEMUS, CHRISTHIAN 14 ESTUARDO RAGUEX-LEMUS, MARELYN 15 NATHALIA RAGUEX-LEMUS, 16 Petitioners, 17 18 v. 17-735 (L), 19 18-12 (Con) 20 NAC 21 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 22 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONERS: Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 29 Attorney General; Derek C. Julius, 30 Assistant Director; Margaret 31 Kuehne Taylor, Senior Litigation 1 Counsel, Office of Immigration 2 Litigation, United States 3 Department of Justice, Washington, 4 DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review 9 are DENIED. 10 Petitioners Milvia Marina Lemus (“Lemus”), Christhian 11 Estuardo Raguex-Lemus, and Marelyn Nathalia Raguex-Lemus, 12 natives and citizens of Guatemala, seek review of both a 13 February 23, 2017 decision of the BIA reversing an August 10, 14 2016 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granting relief 15 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), In re Milvia 16 Marina Lemus et al., Nos. A 208 542 815/816/817 (B.I.A. Feb. 17 23, 2017), reversing Nos. A 208 542 815/816/817 (Immig. Ct. 18 N.Y. City Aug. 10, 2016), and a December 7, 2017 decision of 19 the BIA denying a motion to reopen based on ineffective 20 assistance of counsel, In re Milvia Marina Lemus et al., Nos. 21 A 208 542 815/816/817 (B.I.A. Dec. 7, 2017). We assume the 22 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 23 history in this case. 2 1 Denial of CAT Relief 2 As to the lead petition, we have reviewed the BIA’s 3 decision denying CAT relief. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 4 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review factual findings for 5 substantial evidence and legal issues de novo. See 8 U.S.C. 6 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals