19-728 M.A. v. Garland BIA Mulligan, IJ A078 516 954 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. 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 9th day of July, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: SUSAN L. CARNEY, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ M.A., Petitioner, v. 19-728 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: MIA UNGER (Hasan Shafiqullah, Jennifer Williams, and Julie Dona, on the brief), The Legal Aid Society, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: JACLYN E. SHEA, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation (Derek C. Julius, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, on the brief), for Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 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. Petitioner M.A., a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a decision of the BIA affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re M.A., No. A 078 516 954 (B.I.A. Feb. 22, 2019), aff’g No. A 078 516 954 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Nov. 9, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to grant the petition for review and remand to the agency for further proceedings. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of 2 law de novo. See Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)); Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1690–92 (2020) (holding that limitation on judicial review in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) does not apply to CAT claims). Petitioner challenges only the agency’s denial of deferral of removal under the CAT. Accordingly, the key issue before us is whether the agency’s conclusion that the Honduran government will not acquiesce to torture by gangs is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner also makes a related due process claim. Deferral of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals