17-2179 Torres Gonzalez v. Barr BIA Montante, IJ A089 010 002 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 6th day of May, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 Chief Judge, 9 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 10 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 CIRILA TORRES GONZALEZ, 15 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 17-2179 19 NAC 20 21 WILLIAM P. BARR, 22 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 24 Respondent. 25 _____________________________________ 26 27 FOR PETITIONER: Stephen K. Tills, Esq., Orchard 28 Park, NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Julie M. 3 Iversen, Senior Litigation 4 Counsel; Jeffrey R. Meyer, Office 5 of Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, DC. 8 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 DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 13 Petitioner Cirila Torres Gonzalez, a native and citizen 14 of Mexico, seeks review of a June 15, 2017 decision of the 15 BIA affirming a June 13, 2013 decision of an Immigration Judge 16 (“IJ”) denying Torres Gonzalez’s application for asylum, 17 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 18 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Cirila Torres Gonzalez, No. 19 A089 010 002 (B.I.A. June 15, 2017), aff’g No. A089 010 002 20 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo June 13, 2015). We assume the parties’ 21 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 22 in this case, to which we refer only as necessary to explain 23 our decision. 24 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s 25 decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 26 Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen 2 1 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 2 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 3 1252(b)(4); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 4 2009). 5 I. Asylum 6 We dismiss the petition as it relates to asylum because, 7 for two separate reasons, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals