Rivas Rivas v. Sessions

16-2281 Rivas Rivas v. Sessions BIA Straus, IJ A205 497 469 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 14th day of March, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 REENA RAGGI, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ALCIDES VLADIMIR RIVAS RIVAS, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-2281 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jon E. Jessen, Stamford, CT. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General, Jennifer P. 27 Levings, Senior Litigation 28 Counsel, Kristin Moresi, 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 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Alcides Vladimir Rivas Rivas, a native and 6 citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a June 3, 2016, 7 decision of the BIA affirming a December 2, 2014, decision of 8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Rivas Rivas’s application 9 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Alcides Bladimir 11 Rivas Rivas,1 No. A205 497 469 (B.I.A. June 3, 2016), aff’g 12 No. A205 497 469 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Dec. 2, 2014). We 13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 14 procedural history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the 16 IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 17 Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 18 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 19 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Gjolaj v. Bureau of Citizenship & 1 The record uses both Vladimir and Bladimir. 2 1 Immigration Servs., 468 F.3d 140, 142 (2d Cir. 2006). 2 To establish eligibility for withholding of removal 3 based on membership in a particular social group, an 4 “applicant must establish both that the group itself was 5 cognizable, . . . and that the alleged persecutors targeted 6 the applicant on account ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals