19-3590 Salmeron v. Garland BIA Nelson, IJ A206 487 485 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 2nd day of June, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ WALMER SALMERON, AKA ENRICO PALLAZO, AKA ENRIQUE ROSALES, Petitioner, v. 19-3590 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Andrea A. Saenz, Bridget P. Kessler, Brooklyn Defender Services, Brooklyn, New York; Allen W. Burton, Ethan M. Scapellati, Colleen Powers, Redwan Saleh, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph D. Hardy, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director; United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) is DENIED. Petitioner Walmer Salmeron, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, seeks review of an October 16, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a February 6, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Walmer Salmeron, No. A206 487 485 (B.I.A. Oct. 16, 2019), aff’g No. A206 487 485 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Feb. 6, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, reaching only the grounds for denying relief on which the BIA relied, i.e., the Nicaraguan government’s ability to protect Salmeron and 2 Salmeron’s failure to meet his burden for CAT relief. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 480 F.3d 104, 122 (2d Cir. 2007). Contrary to Salmeron’s position, the BIA was not required to address changed circumstances related to the timeliness of his asylum application or the nexus determination because the agency’s other grounds for the denial of relief were dispositive. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals