17-1721 Ramirez-Martinez v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A206 781 781/782 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 1st day of May, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, REENA RAGGI, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ANA ALICIA RAMIREZ-MARTINEZ, DAVID ALEXANDER REYES-RAMIREZ, Petitioners, v. 17-1721 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.* _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: H. Raymond Fasano, Esq., Youman, Madeo & Fasano, LLP, New York, NY. * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General William P. Barr is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation; Lisa Morinelli, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Ana Alicia Ramirez-Martinez, and her son, David Alexander Reyes-Ramirez, natives and citizens of Honduras, seek review of a BIA decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Ramirez-Martinez’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ana Alicia Ramirez-Martinez, David Alexander Reyes-Ramirez, Nos. A 206 781 781/782 (B.I.A. May 1, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 781 781/782 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 16, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 2 We review factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, treating them as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). We review questions of law de novo. Paloka, 762 F.3d at 195. Ramirez-Martinez claimed asylum and withholding of removal based on her membership in a particular social group, which she defined as “Honduran single mothers who are small business owners.”1 In order to demonstrate her eligibility for asylum and withholding ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals