15-2533 Sukhova v. Sessions BIA Nelson, IJ A089 906 281 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 3rd day of October, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ IRINA SUKHOVA, Petitioner, v. 15-2533 NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Alexander J. Segal, The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, P.L.L.C., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Justin R. Markel, Assistant Director; Brooke M. Maurer, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Irina Sukhova, a native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of Russia, seeks review of a July 13, 2015, decision of the BIA affirming a January 9, 2014, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Sukhova’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Irina Sukhova, No. A089 906 281 (B.I.A. July 13, 2015), aff’g No. A089 906 281 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 9, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 276, 282 (2d Cir. 2006) (applying 2 substantial evidence standard to nexus determination); Joaquin-Porras v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 172, 181 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing agency’s denial of CAT relief under substantial evidence standard). I. Asylum and Withholding of Removal To obtain asylum or withholding of removal, Sukhova had to demonstrate that “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for” the claimed persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Matter of C-T-L, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 346-48 (B.I.A. 2010). Sukhova ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals