19-3201 Ramirez-De Requeno v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A208 895 136/847/848 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 15th day of February, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GERARD E. LYNCH, 8 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 9 BETH ROBINSON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CLAUDIA PATRICIA RAMIREZ-DE 14 REQUENO, 15 CLAUDIA FERNANDA REQUENO-RAMIREZ, 16 JOEL BENJAMIN REQUENO-NOLASCO, 17 Petitioners, 18 19 v. 19-3201 20 NAC 21 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 22 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 1 FOR PETITIONERS: Nicholas J. Mundy, Esq., 2 Brooklyn, NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 5 Attorney General; Nancy Friedman, 6 Senior Litigation Counsel; Sharon 7 M. Clay, Trial Attorney, Office of 8 Immigration Litigation, United 9 States Department of Justice, 10 Washington, D.C. 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 12 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 13 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 14 is DENIED. 15 Petitioners Claudia Patricia Ramirez-De Requeno, Claudia 16 Fernanda Requeno-Ramirez, and Joel Benjamin Requeno-Nolasco, 17 natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of a 18 September 9, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a January 31, 19 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied 20 asylum and withholding of removal. In re Claudia Patricia 21 Ramirez-De Requeno, at al., Nos. A 208 895 136/847/848 (B.I.A. 22 Sept. 9, 2019), aff’g Nos. A 208 895 136/847/848 (Immigr. Ct. 23 N.Y.C. Jan. 31, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 24 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 25 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 26 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 2 1 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 2 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 4 2014) (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence 5 and questions of law and application of law to fact de novo). 6 Petitioners—a wife, husband, and their minor child— 7 alleged past persecution and a fear of future persecution by 8 gangs that wanted control of their property. The agency did 9 not …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals