18-1584 Rivas-Cruz v. Barr BIA Verrillo, IJ A206 799 941 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 7th day of August, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JUAN ARNOLDO RIVAS-CRUZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-1584 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Ramiro Alcazar, Meriden, CT. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 26 General; Leslie McKay, Senior 27 Litigation Counsel; Corey L. 28 Farrell, Attorney, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Juan Arnoldo Rivas-Cruz, a native and citizen 9 of Honduras, seeks review of an April 25, 2018 decision of 10 the BIA affirming an August 22, 2017 decision of an 11 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, 12 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 13 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Juan Arnoldo Rivas-Cruz, No. 14 A 206 799 941 (B.I.A. Apr. 25, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 799 941 15 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Aug. 22, 2017). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 17 in this case. 18 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. See 19 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 20 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 21 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Y.C. v. Holder, 22 741 F.3d 325, 332 (2d Cir. 2013). 2 1 Rivas-Cruz’s argument that the agency lacked 2 jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because his notice 3 to appear did not include a hearing date or time is foreclosed 4 by Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 922 F.3d 101, 110–12 (2d Cir. 2019). 5 Because Rivas-Cruz has not challenged the denial of his 6 CAT claim, we address only asylum and withholding of removal. 7 For asylum and withholding of removal, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals