18-2436 Mendez v. Barr BIA Farber, IJ A077 455 408 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 17th day of December, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 RAUL FLORES MENDEZ, AKA RAUL 14 BENITEZ, 15 Petitioner, 16 v. 18-2436 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Anthony P. 28 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 29 Vanessa M. Otero, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of 32 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 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Raul Flores Mendez, a native and citizen of 6 El Salvador, seeks review of an August 15, 2018, decision of 7 the BIA affirming a March 14, 2018, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying Mendez’s application for withholding of 9 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Raul Flores Mendez, No. A 077 455 408 (B.I.A. 11 Aug. 15, 2018), aff’g No. A 077 455 408 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 12 Mar. 14, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Because the BIA adopted and supplemented the IJ’s 15 decision, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented 16 by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 17 Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s findings of fact under 18 the substantial evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. 19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 20 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination 21 under a substantial evidence standard); Yanqin Weng v. 22 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513, 516 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing 2 1 denial of CAT protection under the substantial evidence 2 standard). Under this standard, “[we] treat factual findings 3 as ‘conclusive unless ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals