20-3403 Munoz v. Garland BIA Ruehle, IJ A205 983 097 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. 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 9th day of March, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., REENA RAGGI, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ MIZRAIM JAAZIEL BARRIOS MUNOZ, Petitioner, v. 20-3403 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Stephen K. Tills, Esq., Orchard Park, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Jonathan Robbins, Senior Litigation Counsel; Timothy Bo Stanton, 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 Mizraim Jaaziel Barrios Munoz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a September 4, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming a June 18, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Barrios Munoz, No. A 205 983 097 (B.I.A. Sep. 4, 2020), aff’g No. A 205 983 097 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo June 18, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo); Hong Fei Gao v. 2 Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018) (reviewing adverse credibility determination under a substantial evidence standard). As an initial matter, Munoz’s argument that his Notice to Appear (“NTA”) was insufficient to vest jurisdiction with the agency because it omitted the date of his initial hearing is foreclosed by Banegas Gomez v. Barr, in which we held that Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), addresses a narrow question regarding the stop-time rule and does not “void jurisdiction in cases in which an NTA omits a hearing time or place” or require specification of the time and date of the initial hearing, “at least so long as a notice …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals