20-1447 Lopez-Lopez v. Garland BIA Brennan, IJ A208 293 749 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 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 9th day of November, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 8 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 9 BETH ROBINSON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 GLORIA LOPEZ-LOPEZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-1447 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Reuben S. Kerben, Kew Gardens, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Margaret Perry, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Craig 29 W. Kuhn, Trial Attorney, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Gloria Lopez-Lopez, a native and citizen of 9 El Salvador, seeks review of an April 2, 2020 decision of the 10 BIA affirming a July 17, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge 11 (“IJ”) that denied her application for asylum, withholding of 12 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 13 (“CAT”). In re Gloria Lopez-Lopez, No. A 208 293 749 (B.I.A. 14 Apr. 2, 2020), aff’g No. A 208 293 749 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 15 July 17, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16 underlying facts and procedural history. 17 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 18 BIA and consider only the grounds for the IJ’s decision that 19 the BIA relied on. We therefore do not address the IJ’s 20 adverse credibility determination. 1 See Xue Hong Yang v. 1 The BIA stated that it “affirm[ed] the [IJ’s] decision for the reasons set forth by the [IJ],” but it did not explicitly address credibility. Although it is unclear if the BIA intended to rely on the adverse credibility determination, the other grounds it specifically discussed were sufficient 2 1 U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 2 applicable standards of review are well established. See 3 Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals