17-2195 Orellana-Hernandez v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A206 628 005 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. 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 27th day of August, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _______________________________________ 12 13 GUILLERMINA NOHEMY ORELLANA-HERNANDEZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-2195 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _______________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael A. Ugolini, Wilbraham, 24 MA. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Corey Farrell, Appellate Counsel, 27 Office of Immigration Litigation, 28 Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation 29 Counsel, Civil Division, for Ethan 1 P. Davis, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General, Civil Division, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC. 5 6 7 8 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 13 is DENIED. 14 Petitioner Guillermina Nohemy Orellana-Hernandez, a 15 native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a June 22, 16 2017 decision of the BIA affirming a May 23, 2016 decision of 17 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 18 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 19 (“CAT”). In re Guillermina Nohemy Orellana-Hernandez, No. 20 A206 628 005 (B.I.A. June 22, 2017), aff’g No. A206 628 005 21 (Immig. Ct. Hartford May 23, 2016). We assume the parties’ 22 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 23 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 24 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 25 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 26 applicable standards of review are well established. See 27 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 2 1 (2d Cir. 2014). 2 The issue before us is whether Orellana-Hernandez 3 satisfied her burden of proof for asylum and withholding of 4 removal based on her claims that her daughter’s father, gang 5 members, and individuals to whom she had lent money threatened 6 her and caused her to close her businesses in Honduras on 7 account of her membership in ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals