17-1107 Rivas-Aparicio v. Whitaker BIA Christensen, IJ A206 005 981 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 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 31st day of January, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 LUIS RENE DARWIN RIVAS-APARICIO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1107 17 NAC 18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 FOR PETITIONER: Anne Pilsbury, Central American 23 Legal Assistance, Brooklyn, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Nancy E. 27 Friedman, Senior Litigation 28 Counsel; Brooke M. Maurer, Trial 29 Attorney, 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 4 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 5 Petitioner Luis Rene Darwin Rivas-Aparicio, a native and 6 citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a March 24, 2017, 7 decision of the BIA affirming a June 16, 2016, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Rivas-Aparicio’s application 9 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Luis Rene Darwin Rivas- 11 Aparicio, No. A 206 005 981 (B.I.A. Mar. 24, 2017), aff’g No. 12 A 206 005 981 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 16, 2016). We assume 13 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 14 procedural history. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s 16 decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the IJ’s adverse 17 credibility determination and the IJ’s finding that torture 18 was not likely to occur. Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 19 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 20 standards of review are well established: we review factual 21 findings for substantial evidence and legal issues de novo. 2 1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 2 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 3 Asylum and Withholding of Removal 4 To demonstrate eligibility for ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals