20-1448 Quijada-Perez v. Garland BIA Nelson, IJ A205 077 632 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 13th day of September, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 BETH ROBINSON, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 FIDENCIO JORGE REYNALDO QUIJADA- 15 PEREZ, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 20-1448 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Bibiana C. Andrade, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Anthony P. 1 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 2 Linda Y. Cheng, Trial Attorney, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, 4 United States Department of 5 Justice, Washington, 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. 10 Petitioner Fidencio Jorge Reynaldo Quijada-Perez, a 11 native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of an April 3, 12 2020, decision of the BIA affirming a March 22, 2018, decision 13 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for 14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Quijada-Perez, No. 16 A 205 077 632 (B.I.A. Apr. 3, 2020), aff’g No. A 205 077 632 17 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 22, 2018). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision. See Mei Chai Ye v. 20 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 523 (2d Cir. 2007). The 21 applicable standards of review are well established. See 22 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“the administrative findings of 23 fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would 24 be compelled to conclude to the contrary”); Yanqin Weng v. 2 1 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing fact 2 finding for substantial evidence and questions of law de 3 novo). The agency did not err in finding that Quijada-Perez 4 failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear 5 of future persecution. 6 Quijada-Perez claimed that he received threatening 7 telephone …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals