16-4132 Miranda Perez v. Garland BIA Hom, IJ A205 401 464 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 30th day of April, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 GLENDA MIRANDA PEREZ, AKA GLENDA 14 VIVIANA MIRANDA PEREZ, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-4132 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 1 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Alyssa H. Manlowe, Benjamin A. 1Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 Butzin-Dozier, Justin S. 2 Kirschner, Latham & Watkins LLP, 3 New York, NY. 4 5 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 6 Assistant Attorney General; 7 Leslie McKay, Greg D. Mack, Senior 8 Litigation Counsel, Office of 9 Immigration Litigation, United 10 States Department of Justice, 11 Washington, DC. 12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 13 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 14 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 15 is DENIED. 16 Petitioner Glenda Miranda Perez, a native and citizen of 17 Guatemala, seeks review of a November 10, 2016, decision of 18 the BIA affirming a March 22, 2016, decision of an Immigration 19 Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, withholding 20 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 21 (“CAT”). In re Glenda Miranda Perez, No. A 205 401 464 22 (B.I.A. Nov. 10, 2016), aff’g No. A205 401 464 (Immig. Ct. 23 N.Y. City Mar. 22, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity 24 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 25 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 26 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the 27 IJ’s finding that Miranda Perez made a different claim at her 2 1 border interview. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 2 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review 3 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei 4 Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). 5 “Considering the totality of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals