17-3351 Medel Corona v. Barr BIA Loprest, IJ A088 442 425 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 15th day of July, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 IVAN MEDEL CORONA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-3351 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Charles Christophe, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Terri J. 27 Scadron, Assistant Director; 28 Manuel A. Palau, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of 31 Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 5 Petitioner Ivan Medel Corona, a native and citizen of 6 Mexico, seeks review of a September 20, 2017 decision of the 7 BIA affirming an August 22, 2016 decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 9 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 10 Ivan Medel Corona, No. A088 442 425 (B.I.A. Sept. 20, 2017), 11 aff’g No. A088 442 425 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 22, 2016). 12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 13 and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered 15 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 16 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 17 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review 18 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin 19 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 20 Asylum: One-Year Filing Deadline 21 An alien is ineligible for asylum “unless the alien 22 demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the 23 application has been filed within 1 year after the date of 2 1 the alien’s arrival in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1158(a)(2)(B). An application may be considered ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals