Mercado-Leyva v. Sessions

16-3821 Mercado-Leyva v. Sessions BIA Nelson, IJ A200 237 705 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 3rd day of April, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ROXANA MERCADO-LEYVA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3821 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Nicholas J. Mundy, Brooklyn, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; M. Jocelyn Lopez 27 Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel; 28 Sara J. Bayram, 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 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Roxana Mercado-Leyva, a native and citizen 6 of Peru, seeks review of an October 14, 2016, decision of 7 the BIA affirming a December 3, 2015, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Mercado-Leyva’s 9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Roxana 11 Mercado-Leyva, No. A 200 237 705 (B.I.A. Oct. 14, 2016), 12 aff’g No. A 200 237 705 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 3, 13 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 14 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 15 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 16 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 17 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we assume, as the 18 BIA did, that Mercado-Leyva established her membership in a 19 particular social group and address only whether she met 20 her burden of demonstrating that the Peruvian government 21 would be unwilling or unable to protect her from her ex- 22 husband. Id. An applicant for asylum, withholding of 23 removal, and CAT relief bears the burden of showing that 2 1 she will be persecuted or tortured “by the government . . . 2 or at the hands of an organization or ...

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