19-2154 Silverio-Salazar v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A202 120 609 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 24th day of August, two thousand twenty- 5 one. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 ELOY SILVERIO-SALAZAR, AKA ELOY 15 SILVERIO SALAZAR-MALDONADO, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 19-2154 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Osakwe, Law Offices of 26 Gregory C. Osakwe LLC, Hartford, 27 CT. 28 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Linda S. 3 Wernery, Assistant Director; 4 Gerald M. Alexander, Trial 5 Attorney, Office of Immigration 6 Litigation, United States 7 Department of Justice, Washington, 8 DC. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 12 is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Eloy Silverio-Salazar, a native and citizen 14 of Ecuador, seeks review of a July 2, 2019, decision of the 15 BIA affirming a February 12, 2018, decision of an Immigration 16 Judge (“IJ”) denying Silverio-Salazar’s application for 17 asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 18 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Eloy Silverio- 19 Salazar, No. A 202 120 609 (B.I.A. July 2, 2019), aff’g No. A 20 202 120 609 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Feb. 12, 2018). We assume 21 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 22 procedural history. 23 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 24 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 25 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review 2 1 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Hong Fei 2 Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). In 3 determining credibility, the agency must “[c]onsider[] the 4 totality of the circumstances” and may base a credibility 5 finding on the “inherent plausibility of the applicant’s . . 6 . account.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). “We defer . . . 7 to an IJ’s credibility determination unless . . . it is …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals