20-2118 Olivares De Lizama v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A209 418 019/020 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 17th day of November, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 Chief Judge, 10 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 11 ALISON J. NATHAN, 12 Circuit Judges. 13 _____________________________________ 14 15 SARA NOEMI OLIVARES DE LIZAMA, 16 IKER EMANUEL LIZAMA-OLIVARES, 17 Petitioners, 18 19 v. 20-2118 20 NAC 21 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 22 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONERS: Manuel D. Gomez, Manuel D. Gomez 27 & Associates, New York, NY. 28 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Cindy S. 3 Ferrier, Assistant Director; Sarai 4 M. Aldana, Trial Attorney, Office 5 of Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, DC. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 12 is DENIED. 13 Petitioners Sara Noemi Olivares De Lizama and Iker 14 Emanuel Lizama-Olivares, natives and citizens of El Salvador, 15 seek review of a June 5, 2020, BIA decision affirming an April 16 26, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 17 their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 18 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 19 Sara Noemi Olivares De Lizama, Iker Emanuel Lizama-Olivares, 20 Nos. A209-418-019/020 (B.I.A. June 5, 2020), aff’g Nos. A209- 21 418-019/020 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Apr. 26, 2018). We assume 22 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 23 procedural history. 24 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 25 BIA, i.e., minus the IJ’s findings regarding whether Olivares 26 De Lizama’s proposed social groups were cognizable. See Ming 2 1 Xia Chen v. Bd. of Immigr. Appeals, 435 F.3d 141, 144 (2d 2 Cir. 2006). The agency did not err in finding that Olivares 3 De Lizama failed to establish her eligibility for relief based 4 on gang extortion and threats or in denying her request for 5 a continuance to submit corroborating affidavits. 6 I. Asylum and Withholding of Removal 7 The applicable standards …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals