Rodriguez Moscoso v. Garland

20-1903 Rodriguez Moscoso v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A201 242 139 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 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 March, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 EUNICE C. LEE, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ MOSCOSO, AKA 15 RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ, AKA RAMIRO 16 MOSCOSO, 17 Petitioner, 18 19 v. 20-1903 20 NAC 21 22 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 23 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 24 Respondent. 25 _____________________________________ 26 27 FOR PETITIONER: Nicholas J. Mundy, Esq., 28 Brooklyn, NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Erica B. Miles, 3 Senior Litigation Counsel, Office 4 of Immigration Litigation; Jaclyn 5 E. Shea, Trial Attorney, Office of 6 Immigration Litigation, United 7 States Department of Justice, 8 Washington, DC. 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 13 is DENIED. 14 Petitioner Ramiro Rodriguez Moscoso, a native and citizen 15 of Colombia, seeks review of a June 4, 2020, decision of the 16 BIA affirming a June 20, 2018, decision of an Immigration 17 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding 18 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 19 (“CAT”). In re Ramiro Rodriguez Moscoso, No. A201 242 139 20 (B.I.A. June 4, 2020), aff’g No. A201 242 139 (Immigr. Ct. 21 N.Y. City June 20, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 22 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 23 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 24 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 25 Cir. 2005). “The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient 26 to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but 27 only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the 2 1 applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers 2 to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the 3 applicant is a refugee. . . . Where the trier of fact 4 determines that the applicant should provide evidence that 5 corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must 6 be provided unless …

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