Osorto-Romero v. Sessions

16-2870 Osorto-Romero v. Sessions BIA Straus, IJ A206 429 811/812/813 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 22nd day of June, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 NIMIA SUYAPA OSORTO-ROMERO, 14 MARIELENA GONZALEZ-OSORTO, 15 STEFANY SUYAPA GONZALEZ-OSORTO, 16 Petitioners, 17 18 v. 16-2870 19 NAC 20 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONERS: Danielle Robinson Briand, Center 26 for Immigrant Justice, 27 Minneapolis, MN. 28 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Anthony C. 3 Payne, Assistant Director; Liza S. 4 Murcia, Attorney, Office of 5 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 Petitioner Nimia Suyapa Osorto-Romero, and her minor 14 children and derivative applicants Marielena Gonzalez- 15 Osorto and Stefany Suyapa Gonzalez-Osorto (collectively, 16 “Osorto”), natives and citizens of Honduras, seek review of 17 a July 29, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a July 2, 18 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 19 Osorto’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, 20 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 21 In re Nimia Suyapa Osorto-Romero, Marielena Gonzalez- 22 Osorto, Stefany Suyapa Gonzalez-Osorto, Nos. A 206 429 23 811/812/813 (B.I.A. July 29, 2016), aff’g Nos. A 206 429 24 811/812/813 (Immig. Ct. Hartford July 9, 2015).1 We assume 1 Osorto has not challenged the denial of CAT relief in this Court. Accordingly, we do not address that issue. See Yueging Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). 2 1 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 2 procedural history in this case. 3 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 4 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 5 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 6 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). For asylum and withholding 7 of removal, an “applicant must ...

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