19-162 Rochez-Torres v. Garland BIA Poczter, IJ A206 629 195 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 17th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________ ELVIS ADONAY ROCHEZ-TORRES, Petitioner, v. 19-162 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _________________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, Esq., Youman, Madeo & Fasano, LLP, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. NiCastro, Assistant Director; Ilana J. Snyder, 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 Elvis Adonay Rochez-Torres, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a December 17, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a November 14, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum and withholding of removal. In re Elvis Adonay Rochez-Torres, No. A206 629 195 (B.I.A. Dec. 17, 2018), aff’g No. A206 629 195 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 14, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). An applicant for asylum and withholding of removal “must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a 2 particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see also id. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 348 (B.I.A. 2010) (applying one central reason standard to withholding of removal). The issue before us is whether Rochez-Torres established that rogue officers and gang members in El Salvador harmed him in the past and would target him in the future on account of an imputed anti-gang political opinion or membership in a social group of Salvadoran men who have witnessed collusion between the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals