Maldonado v. Barr


17-1631 Maldonado v. Barr BIA Vomacka, IJ A029 132 723/071 591 727 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 12th day of June, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 RAMIRO MALDONADO, ADELMA 14 MALDONANDO, 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 17-1631 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONERS: E. Abel Arcia, Law offices of 25 Arcia & Associates, Jackson 26 Heights, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 29 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 30 Assistant Director; Carmel A. 31 Morgan, Trial Attorney, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioners Ramiro Maldonado and Adelma Maldonando, 10 natives and citizens of Guatemala, seek review of April 20, 11 2017 and September 22, 2011, decisions of the BIA reversing 12 an August 24, 2009, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 13 granting Ramiro Maldonado’s application for asylum, and 14 affirming a February 24, 2016, order of removal. In re Ramiro 15 Maldonado and Adelma Maldonando, No. A 029 132 723/071 591 727 16 (B.I.A. Sept. 22, 2011 and Apr. 20, 2017), rev’g No. A 029 132 17 723/071 591 727 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 24, 2009 and Feb. 18 24, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 19 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 20 Because the BIA reversed the IJ’s grant of asylum, we 21 have reviewed the BIA’s ruling as the final agency decision. 22 See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). 23 The applicable standards of review are well established. See 2 1 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 2 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing factual findings for 3 substantial evidence and questions of law and the application 4 of law to undisputed facts de novo). 5 The ...

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