16-1855 Ramirez-Gonzalez v. Sessions BIA Verrillo, IJ A206 629 325 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 3rd day of October, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SAN HUMBERTO RAMIREZ-GONZALEZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-1855 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Osakwe, Hartford, CT. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Principal Deputy 26 Assistant Attorney General, Carl H. 27 McIntyre, Assistant Director, 28 Justin R. Markel, Senior Litigation 29 Counsel, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation, United States 31 Department of Justice, Washington, 32 DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner San Humberto Ramirez-Gonzalez, a native and 6 citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a May 18, 2016, decision 7 of the BIA affirming a September 22, 2015, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ramirez-Gonzalez’s 9 application for asylum and withholding of removal.1 In re San 10 Humberto Ramirez-Gonzalez, No. A206 629 325 (B.I.A. May 18, 11 2016), aff’g No. A206 629 325 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Sept. 22, 12 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 13 facts and procedural history in this case. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 15 the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 16 Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 17 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 18 § 1252(b)(4); Gjolaj v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration 19 Servs., 468 F.3d 140, 142 (2d Cir. 2006). 1 Ramirez-Gonzalez does not challenge the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1998) (“Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal.”). 2 1 To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of 2 removal based on membership in a particular social group, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals