17-1469 Sandoval-Flores v. Barr BIA Weisel, IJ A206 805 724/722 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 29th day of April, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CLAUDIA INES SANDOVAL-FLORES, 14 YANCY PAOLA SANDOVAL-FLORES, 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 17-1469 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONERS: Steven Lyons, Martin C. Liu & 25 Associates, PLLC, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; John S. Hogan, 29 Assistant Director; Robbin K. 30 Blaya, Trial Attorney, Office of 31 Immigration Litigation, United 32 States Department of Justice, 33 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 Petitioners Claudia Ines Sandoval-Flores (“Sandoval- 6 Flores”) and Yancy Paola Sandoval-Flores, natives and citizen 7 of El Salvador, seek review of an April 6, 2017, decision of 8 the BIA affirming a July 27, 2016, decision of an Immigration 9 Judge (“IJ”) denying Sandoval-Flores’s application for 10 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 11 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Claudia Ines 12 Sandoval-Flores, Yancy Paola Sandoval-Flores, No. A 206 805 13 724/722 (B.I.A. Apr. 6, 2017), aff’g No. A 206 805 724/722 14 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jul. 27, 2016). We assume the parties’ 15 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 16 in this case. 17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 18 the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen 19 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). “We review 20 the agency’s factual findings under the substantial evidence 21 standard, . . . [and] review legal questions, and the 22 application of law to fact, de novo.” Gjolaj v. Bureau of 2 1 Citizenship and Immig. Servs., 468 F.3d 140, 142 (2d Cir. 2 2006) (internal citations omitted). 3 Asylum and Withholding of Removal 4 For asylum and withholding of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals