17-2991 Reina Murcia v. Whitaker BIA Verrillo, IJ A206 779 037 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 14th day of January, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ROXANA GUADALUPE REINA MURCIA, Petitioner, v. 17-2991 NAC MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Osakwe, Hartford, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Julie M. Iversen, Senior Litigation Counsel; Robert Michael Stalzer, 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 Roxana Guadalupe Reina Murcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a September 5, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a January 3, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Reina Murcia’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Roxana Guadalupe Reina Murcia, No. A 206 779 037 (B.I.A. Sept. 5, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 779 037 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Jan. 3, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. In lieu of filing a brief, the Government moves for summary denial of Reina Murcia's petition for review. Rather than determine if the petition is frivolous as is required for summary denial, see Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir. 1995), we construe the Government’s motion as its brief and deny the petition on the merits. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen 2 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s adverse credibility determination under the substantial evidence standard. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 165- 66 (2d Cir. 2008). For applications such as Reina Murcia’s, governed by the REAL ID Act of 2005, the adverse credibility standard is as follows: Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals