19-1641 Sangurima-Nieves v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A205 956 325/326/327 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 13th day of January, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 ROSA ELVIRA SANGURIMA-NIEVES, 15 JENNY MARCIELA GALLEGOS- 16 SANGURIMA, MARIA FLOR AREVALO- 17 SANGURIMA, 18 Petitioners, 19 20 v. 19-1641 21 NAC 22 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 23 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 24 Respondent. 25 _____________________________________ 26 27 FOR PETITIONERS: H. Raymond Fasano, Esq., Youman, 28 Madeo & Fasano, LLP, New York, NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 2 General; Linda S. Wernery, 3 Assistant Director; Steven K. 4 Uejio, Trial Attorney, Office of 5 Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioners Rosa Elvira Sangurima-Nieves, Jenny Marciela 13 Gallegos-Sangurima, and Maria Flor Arevalo-Sangurima, natives 14 and citizens of Ecuador, seek review of a May 7, 2019 decision 15 of the BIA affirming a November 17, 2017 decision of an 16 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 17 removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture 18 (“CAT”). In re Rosa Elvira Sangurima-Nieves, Jenny Marciela 19 Gallegos-Sangurima, Maria Flor Arevalo-Sangurima, Nos. A205 20 956 325/326/327 (B.I.A. May 7, 2019), aff’g No. A205 956 21 325/326/327 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 17, 2017). We assume 22 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 23 procedural history. 24 We have reviewed the decision of the IJ as supplemented 25 and modified by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 2 1 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005); Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 2 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the 3 agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, and we 4 review questions of law, and applications of law to facts de 5 novo. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 6 2009); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he 7 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals