Lopez-Perez v. Garland

20-212 Lopez-Perez v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A206 640 465/466 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 25th day of July, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, JOHN M. WALKER, JR., BETH ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ROXANA AUDELIA LOPEZ-PEREZ, DILAN SANTOS-LOPEZ, Petitioners, v. 20-212 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Glenn L. Formica, Formica, P.C., New Haven, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director; Julia J. Tyler, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. Petitioners Roxana Audelia Lopez-Perez and her minor son, Dilan Santos-Lopez, natives and citizens of Guatemala, seek review of a December 20, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a March 1, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their claims for asylum and withholding of removal. 1 In re Roxana Audelia Lopez-Perez, Dilan Santos-Lopez, Nos. A 206 640 465/466 (B.I.A. Dec. 20, 2019), aff’g Nos. A 206 640 465/466 (Immigr. Ct. Hartford Mar. 1, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 1 We do not address Petitioners’ claims for relief under the Convention Against Torture because they do not challenge the denial of those claims here. 2 We have reviewed only the BIA’s decision because the BIA provided its own analysis, did not explicitly affirm or adopt the IJ’s findings, and declined to reach some bases for the IJ’s decision. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2010) (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law and application of law to fact de novo). I. Lopez-Perez’s Asylum and Withholding Claims To establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal, Lopez-Perez was required to show that she had suffered past persecution, or had a well-founded fear of future persecution, on account of a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3). The BIA …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals