19-534 Ramirez-Lopez v. Garland BIA Nelson, IJ A205 919 640 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 the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 4th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 ELMER OBENIEL RAMIREZ-LOPEZ, 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. 19-534 16 NAC 17 MERRICK B. GARLAND, 18 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 Respondent. 20 _____________________________________ 21 22 FOR PETITIONER: Kevin W. Jones, Esq., Kevin W. Jones & 23 Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; John 26 S. Hogan, Assistant Director; Andrea N. Gevas, 27 Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 28 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 2 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 3 DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED, the order of the BIA is 4 VACATED, and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings. 5 Petitioner Elmer Obeniel Ramirez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks 6 review of a February 1, 2019, decision of the BIA affirming a December 11, 2017, 7 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ramirez-Lopez’s application for 8 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 9 (“CAT”). In re Elmer Obeniel Ramirez-Lopez, No. A 205 919 640 (B.I.A. Feb. 1, 2019), 10 aff’g No. A 205 919 640 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 11, 2017). We assume the parties’ 11 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 12 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. 13 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 14 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 15 2014) (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law, including 16 whether a proposed group is cognizable, de novo); Gjolaj v. Bureau of Citizenship & 17 Immigration Servs., 468 F.3d 140, 143 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing nexus determination for 18 substantial evidence). 19 To qualify for asylum and withholding of removal, an applicant must establish 20 past …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals