20-868 Maldonado-Luna v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A088 442 871 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 16th day of February, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 BETH ROBINSON, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _________________________________________ 13 14 CANDIDO MALDONADO-LUNA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-868 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _________________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONERS: Michael Yurasov-Lichtenberg, 25 Havens & Lichtenberg PLLC, New 26 York, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 29 Assistant Attorney General; Linda 30 S. Wernery, Assistant Director; 1 Gregory M. Kelch, Trial Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Candido Maldonado-Luna, a native and citizen 11 of Mexico, seeks review of a February 10, 2020 decision of 12 the BIA affirming a March 28, 2018 decision of an Immigration 13 Judge (“IJ”), which denied withholding of removal and relief 14 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re 15 Candido Maldonado-Luna, No. A088 442 871 (B.I.A. Feb. 10, 16 2020), aff’g No. A088 442 871 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Mar. 28, 17 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 18 underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the 20 sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 21 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). Because Maldonado-Luna 22 does not challenge the denial of his CAT claim in this Court, 23 we address only withholding of removal. “We review factual 24 findings under the substantial evidence standard, treating 25 5them as ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would 2 1 be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Paloka v. 2 Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1252(b)(4)(B)). We review questions of law — and the 4 application of law to undisputed facts — de novo. Id. 5 An applicant for withholding of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals