19-3998 Portillo v. Garland BIA Gordon-Uruakpa, IJ A088 445 296 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 November, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 CARLOS NOE PORTILLO, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-3998 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Esq., 25 Hempstead, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; Claire 1 L. Workman, Senior Litigation 2 Counsel; John F. Stanton, Trial 3 Attorney, 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 Petitioner Carlos Noe Portillo, a native and citizen of 12 El Salvador, seeks review of a November 4, 2019 decision of 13 the BIA reversing a February 15, 2018 decision of an 14 immigration judge (“IJ”) granting deferral of removal under 15 the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Carlos Noe 16 Portillo, No. A088 445 296 (B.I.A. Nov. 4, 2019), rev’g No. 17 A088 445 296 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 15, 2018). We assume 18 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 19 procedural history. 20 We have reviewed the BIA’s decision as the final agency 21 determination. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 22 (2d Cir. 2005). We review factual findings for substantial 23 evidence and questions of law de novo. See Nasrallah v. 24 Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020); Manning v. Barr, 954 F.3d 2 1 477, 484 (2d Cir. 2020). 2 An applicant for CAT protection must show that he will 3 “more likely than not” be tortured by or with the acquiescence 4 of government officials. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 5 1208.17(a), 1208.18(a)(1); Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 6 170–71 (2d Cir. 2004). “Torture is defined as any act by 7 which severe pain or suffering . . …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals