20-2582 Maravilla Campos v. Garland BIA Kolbe, IJ A206 879 638 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. 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 25th day of April, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 EUNICE C. LEE, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 DINA MARIBEL MARAVILLA CAMPOS, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-2582 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, 26 NY. 27 28 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy 2 Assistant Attorney General; Linda 3 S. Wernery, Assistant Director; 4 Taryn L. Arbeiter, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Dina Maribel Maravilla Campos, a native and 13 citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a July 7, 2020 14 decision of the BIA affirming a July 9, 2018 decision of an 15 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, 16 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 17 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Dina Maribel Maravilla 18 Campos, No. A 206 879 638 (B.I.A. July 7, 2020), aff’g No. 19 A 206 879 638 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City July 9, 2018). We assume 20 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 21 procedural history. 22 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 23 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 24 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). When we 2 1 review adverse credibility determinations, “the 2 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 3 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 4 contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Accordingly, we 5 review the agency’s decision for substantial evidence and 6 must defer to the factfinder’s findings based on such relevant 7 evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 8 support a conclusion.” Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106, 113 9 (2d Cir. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals