17-2298 Ruiz-Hernandez v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A206 714 879 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 20th day of February, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ILEANA MELISSA RUIZ-HERNANDEZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-2298 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jon E. Jessen, Law Offices Jon E. 24 Jessen LLC, Stamford, CT. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 27 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Jesse 29 Lloyd Busen, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of 32 Justice, Washington, 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 Ileana Melissa Ruiz-Hernandez, a native and 6 citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a June 26, 2017, decision 7 of the BIA affirming a December 15, 2016, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ruiz-Hernandez’s application 9 for asylum and withholding of removal. In re Ileana Melissa 10 Ruiz-Hernandez, No. A 206 714 879 (B.I.A. June 26, 2017), 11 aff’g No. A 206 714 879 (Immig. Ct. Hartford, CT Dec. 15, 12 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history. 14 Under the circumstances of this case, where the BIA’s 15 opinion closely tracks the IJ’s reasoning, we have reviewed 16 both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 17 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). The applicable standards 18 of review are well established: the Court reviews factual 19 findings for substantial evidence and legal issues de novo. 20 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 21 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 1 To obtain asylum or withholding of removal, Ruiz- 2 Hernandez was required to establish that “race, religion, 3 nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 4 political opinion was or will be at least one central 5 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals