19-2136 Puma-Niola v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A205 921 455 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 11th day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 MICHAEL H. PARK, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ANTHONY ALBERTO PUMA-NIOLA 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-2136 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Borja, Esq., Borja Law 24 Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Shelley R. Goad, 28 Assistant Director; Jennifer P. 1 Levings, Senior Litigation 2 Counsel, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 DC. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 10 Petitioner Anthony Alberto Puma-Niola, a native and 11 citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a June 18, 2019 decision 12 of the BIA affirming a January 26, 2018 decision of an 13 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Puma-Niola’s application for 14 asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Anthony Alberto 16 Puma-Niola, No. A 205 921 455 (B.I.A. Dec. June 18, 2019), 17 aff’g No. A 205 921 455 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Jan. 26, 2018). We 18 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 19 procedural history. 20 We review both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. Wangchuck 21 v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). 22 The applicable standards of review are well established. See 23 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 24 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing factual findings for 2 1 substantial evidence and questions of law and application of 2 law to facts de novo). 3 We deny the petition as to asylum and withholding of 4 removal. An applicant must establish past persecution or a 5 fear of future persecution and that “race, religion, 6 nationality, membership in a particular social group, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals