20-2463 Montalvo-Marin v. Garland BIA Segal, IJ A206 733 719 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 10th day of May, two thousand twenty-three. PRESENT: JOSEPH F. BIANCO, STEVEN J. MENASHI, BETH ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________ YINMI ROLANDO MONTALVO-MARIN, Petitioner, v. 20-2463 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _________________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Usman B. Ahmad, Long Island City, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation Counsel; David Kim, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Yinmi Rolando Montalvo-Marin, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a July 6, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming a July 2, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Yinmi Rolando Montalvo-Marin, No. A206 733 719 (B.I.A. July 6, 2020), aff’g No. A206 733 719 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 2, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1252(b)(4)(B). Thus, “we review the agency’s decision for substantial evidence and must defer to the factfinder’s findings based on such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. . . . By contrast, we review legal conclusions de novo.” Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106, 113 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Montalvo-Marin failed to establish a nexus between the harm he suffered and fears in El Salvador and an imputed anti- gang political opinion, or that Salvadoran officials would likely acquiesce in his torture by gang members. A. Asylum and Withholding of Removal To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals