19-1708 Pillacela-Cajamarca v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A209 421 677 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 30th day of September, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ FRANCKLIN DANILO PILLACELA- CAJAMARCA, Petitioner, v. 19-1708 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Robert C. Ross, Esq., West Haven, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Kiley Kane, Senior Litigation Counsel; Todd J. Cochran, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Francklin Danilo Pillacela-Cajamarca, a native and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a May 13, 2019, decision of the BIA affirming a December 18, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Francklin Danilo Pillacela-Cajamarca, No. A 209 421 677 (B.I.A. May 13, 2019), aff’g No. A 209 421 677 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Dec. 18, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007). The standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would 2 be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”); Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law and application of law to fact de novo). To obtain asylum or withholding of removal, Pillacela- Cajamarca was required to establish that “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for” the claimed persecution. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (asylum), 1231(b)(3)(A) (withholding); Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 346 (B.I.A. 2010) (holding that the “one central reason” standard also applies to withholding of removal). Pillacela-Cajamarca argues that he established that he would be persecuted on account of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals