18-3507 Macas-Moreno v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A208 368 055 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 22nd day of March, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, SUSAN L. CARNEY, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ROBER VINICIO MACAS-MORENO, Petitioner, v. 18-3507 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.* _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Osakwe, Esq., Hartford, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 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 DENIED. Petitioner Rober Vinicio Macas-Moreno, a native and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a November 1, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a September 8, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Rober Vinicio Macas-Moreno, No. A208 368 055 (B.I.A. Nov. 1, 2018), aff’g No. A208 368 055 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Sept. 8, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. In lieu of filing a brief, the Government moves for summary denial and to stay briefing. Rather than determine if the petition is frivolous, as required for summary denial, Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 16–17 (2d Cir. 1995), we construe the Government’s motion as a brief and deny the petition on the merits. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 2 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decision “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The standards of review are well established. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo). Asylum and Withholding of Removal The agency did not err in finding that Macas-Moreno failed to establish a nexus between his alleged harm and a statutorily protected ground. In order to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, an “applicant …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals