20-2796 Perez Fuentes v. Garland BIA Farber, IJ A216 557 785 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 28th day of July, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 EUNICE C. LEE, 10 BETH ROBINSON, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _________________________________________ 13 14 JOSUE ARMANDO PEREZ FUENTES, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-2796 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _________________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Craig Relles, Esq., White Plains, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Sabatino F. Leo, 1 Assistant Director; Madeline 2 Henley, Trial Attorney, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. 11 Petitioner Josue Armando Perez Fuentes, a native and 12 citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of an August 13, 2020 13 decision of the BIA, affirming a February 28, 2020 decision 14 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying withholding of 15 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture 16 (“CAT”). In re Josue Armando Perez Fuentes, No. A216 557 785 17 (B.I.A. Aug. 13, 2020), aff’g No. A216 557 785 (Immigr. Ct. 18 N.Y. City Feb. 28, 2020). We assume the parties’ familiarity 19 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 21 BIA, i.e., minus the findings that the BIA did not reach. 22 See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 23 (2d Cir. 2005). “We review factual findings under the 24 substantial evidence standard,” while “[q]uestions of law, as 25 well as the application of legal principles to undisputed 2 1 facts, are reviewed de novo.” Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 2 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 3 A. Withholding of Removal 4 To establish eligibility for withholding of removal, an 5 applicant must show that he “will more likely than not” be 6 persecuted …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals