18-3586 Lopez Duran v. Rosen BIA Conroy, IJ A088 442 404 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 4th day of January, two thousand twenty- 5 one. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 ROBERT D. SACK, 10 DENNY CHIN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 AURELIO LOPEZ DURAN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-3586 18 NAC 19 JEFFREY A. ROSEN, ACTING UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Gisela Chavez-Garcia, Law Offices 25 of Gisela Chavez-Garcia, New York, 26 NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 29 Assistant Attorney General; 1 Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant 2 Director; Tracey N. McDonald, 3 Trial Attorney, Office of 4 Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Aurelio Lopez Duran, a native and citizen of 12 Mexico, seeks review of an October 31, 2018, decision of the 13 BIA affirming an October 16, 2017, decision of an Immigration 14 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 15 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 16 Aurelio Lopez Duran, No. A 088 442 404 (B.I.A. Oct. 31, 2018), 17 aff’g No. A 088 442 404 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 16, 2017). 18 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 19 and procedural history. 20 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions 21 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 22 Homeland Security, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 23 applicable standards of review are well established. See 24 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 25 (2d Cir. 2014) (reviewing factual findings for substantial 2 1 evidence and questions of law, including whether a proposed 2 group is cognizable, de novo); Gjolaj v. Bureau of Citizenship 3 & Immigration Servs., 468 F.3d 140, 143 (2d Cir. 2006) 4 (reviewing nexus determination for substantial evidence). 5 Lopez Duran does not challenge the denial of asylum and we 6 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals