20-3839 Moscoso-Mancia v. Garland BIA Poczter, IJ A209 283 928 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. 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 21st day of July, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ANA MARIA MOSCOSO-MANCIA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-3839 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael E. Rosado, Laurel, MD. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting 26 Assistant Attorney General; 27 Benjamin Mark Moss, Senior 28 Litigation Counsel; Sara J. 1 Bayram, Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Ana Maria Moscoso-Mancia, a native and citizen 11 of El Salvador, seeks review of an October 9, 2020, decision 12 of the BIA affirming a June 25, 2018, decision of an 13 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Moscoso-Mancia’s application 14 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ana Maria Moscoso- 16 Mancia, No. A209 283 928 (B.I.A. Oct. 9, 2020), aff’g No. 17 A209 283 928 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 25, 2018). We assume 18 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 19 procedural history. 20 Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s 21 decision as modified and supplemented by the BIA. See Xue 22 Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d 23 Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 24 2005). We review competency and adverse credibility findings 25 for substantial evidence, treating “the administrative 2 1 findings of fact . . . [as] conclusive unless any reasonable 2 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 3 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 4 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018); Diop v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 70, 75 5 (4th Cir. 2015). We find no error …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals