20-1693 Santiaguez v. Garland UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUM- MARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FED- ERAL 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. 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 16th day of September, two thousand twenty-two. Present: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, BARRINGTON D. PARKER EUNICE C. LEE, Circuit Judges _____________________________________ CASIMIRO SANTIAGUEZ, AKA JORGE SMET, Petitioner, v. 20-1693 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ For Petitioner: NOAH NIX, Student Counsel (Thomas V. Burch, Esq., Olivia B. Hunter, Student Counsel, Jared R. Allen, Stu- dent Counsel, on the brief), Appellate Litigation Clinic, University of Georgia School of Law, Athens, GA. Paige Austin, on the brief, Make the Road New York, Brooklyn, N.Y. 1 For Respondent: VIRGINIA LUM, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division (Brian Boynton, Acting As- sistant Attorney General and Nancy E. Friedman, Sen- ior Litigation Counsel, on the brief), United States De- partment of Justice, Washington, D.C. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. Casimiro Santiaguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a May 22, 2020 de- cision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming a November 20, 2019 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Casimiro Santiaguez, No. A206-0320-068 (B.I.A. May 22, 2020), aff’g No. A206-032-068 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Nov. 20, 2019). We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA, see Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005), and assume the parties’ famil- iarity with the underlying facts and procedural history, which we discuss only as necessary to explain our decision to grant the petition. I. Standard for CAT Relief To be eligible for CAT relief, an applicant must show that upon removal he “more likely than not would be tortured by, or with the acquiescence of, government officials acting in an offi- cial capacity.” Scarlett v. Barr, 957 F.3d 316, 334 (2d Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omit- ted); see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17(a), 1208.18(a)(1); see also Quinteros v. Att’y Gen., 945 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir. 2019) (noting the agency must address “two prongs . . . when evaluating a CAT claim”: (1) “whether an applicant has met …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals