Petrova v. Garland

20-1941 Petrova v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A202 042 704/05 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 24th day of January, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 MYRNA PÉREZ, 10 ALISON J. NATHAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 ANGELINA PETROVA, ILIA 15 GURASPISHVILI, 16 Petitioners, 17 18 v. 20-1941 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONERS: Alexander J. Segal, Esq., New 26 York, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 1 Attorney General; Kohsei Ugumori, 2 Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigation 3 Counsel, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 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. 11 Petitioners Angelina Petrova and Ilia Guraspishvili, 12 citizens of Georgia, seek review of a May 27, 2020 decision 13 of the BIA affirming a July 12, 2018 decision of an 14 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Petrova’s application for 15 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 16 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), 1 on which Guraspishvili 17 was listed as a derivative asylum applicant. In re Angelina 18 Petrova, Ilia Guraspishvili, Nos. A 202 042 704/05 (B.I.A. May 19 27, 2020), aff’g Nos. A 202 042 704/05 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. 20 July 12, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 21 underlying facts and procedural history. 1Petrova does not raise her CAT claim in this court or challenge the BIA’s denial of her motion to remand. 2 1 Standard of Review 2 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions 3 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 4 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review 5 factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of 6 law de novo. See Pan v. Holder, 777 F.3d 540, 543 (2d Cir. 7 2015). Under the substantial evidence standard, 8 “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 9 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 10 contrary.” …

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