Oliva-Oliva v. Garland

20-1319 Oliva-Oliva v. Garland BIA Verrillo, IJ A208 281 630 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 2nd day of August, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 8 EUNICE C. LEE, 9 BETH ROBINSON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _________________________________________ 12 13 EDGAR FERNANDO OLIVA-OLIVA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-1319 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _________________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Robert C. Ross, Esq., West Haven, 24 CT. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Keith I. 28 McManus, Assistant Director; 1 Edward C. Durant, Attorney, Office 2 of 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 in part and GRANTED in part. 10 Petitioner Edgar Fernando Oliva-Oliva, a native and 11 citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a March 24, 2020 12 decision of the BIA that affirmed a September 12, 2018 13 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, 14 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 15 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Edgar Fernando Oliva-Oliva, 16 No. A208 281 630 (B.I.A. Mar. 24, 2020), aff’g No. A208 281 17 630 (Immigr. Ct. Hartford Sept. 12, 2018). We assume the 18 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 19 history. 20 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. 21 See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 22 (2d Cir. 2006). We review factual findings for substantial 23 evidence, and questions of law de novo. See Paloka v. Holder, 24 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). “[T]he administrative 25 findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable 2 1 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 3 A. Asylum and Withholding of Removal 4 To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of 5 removal, an applicant must show that he suffered past 6 persecution, or has a well-founded fear or likelihood of 7 future persecution, on account …

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