18-3518 Loja-Moreno v. Barr BIA IJ Verrillo A205 497 521 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 15th day of December, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JUAN LEONARDO LOJA-MORENO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3518 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Osakwe, Esq., Hartford, 24 CT. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; 28 Matthew B. George, Senior 1 Litigation Counsel; Sherry D. 2 Soanes, 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, Juan Leonardo Loja-Moreno, a native and 11 citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of an October 29, 2018, 12 decision of the BIA affirming a November 27, 2017, decision 13 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 14 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 15 (“CAT”). In re Juan Leonardo Loja-Moreno, No. A205 497 521 16 (B.I.A. Oct. 29, 2018), aff’g No. A205 497 521 (Immig. Ct. 17 Hartford Nov. 27, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity 18 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions 20 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 21 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 22 applicable standards of review are well established. See 23 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 24 (2d Cir. 2014) (reviewing de novo whether a group constitutes 2 1 a particular social group under the Immigration and 2 Nationality Act); Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 276, 3 281-83 (2d Cir. 2006) (applying substantial evidence standard 4 to nexus determination); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 5 513, 516 (2d Cir. 2009) (applying substantial evidence 6 standard to CAT claim). 7 To obtain asylum or withholding of removal, an ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals