19-3939 Remy v. Barr BIA Leonard, IJ A023 725 667 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 20th day of August, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: PETER W. HALL, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ANTONIO ESPINOZA REMY, Petitioner, v. 19-3939 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Robert F. Graziano, Buffalo, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Sabatino F. Leo, Senior Litigation Counsel; Andrew B. Insenga, 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 Antonio Espinoza Remy, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, seeks review of an October 24, 2019, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) affirming an asylum officer’s negative reasonable fear determination. In re Antonio Espinoza Remy, No. A023 725 667 (Immig. Ct. Batavia Oct. 24, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. The sole issue before this Court is whether the IJ erred in affirming an asylum officer’s determination that Remy did not establish a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Nicaragua. The standard of review applicable to a reasonable fear determination is an open question in this Court. Other circuits have held that the usual standards applicable to review of removal proceedings apply or have applied those standards without discussion. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 835–36 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Lara-Nieto v. Barr, 945 F.3d 1054, 1060 (8th Cir. 2019) (declining to reach issue because petition failed under standard more favorable to petitioner); Hernandez-Aquino v. Barr, 770 F. App’x 88, 88 2 n.2 (4th Cir. 2019) (same); Telles v. Lynch, 639 F. App’x 658, 662 (1st Cir. 2016) (same). The Government asserts that we should apply a more deferential “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” standard. We need not resolve that issue here because Remy’s petition fails even under the more generous standards. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and question of law and application of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals