20-1307 Vasquez-Vasquez v. Garland BIA Ruehle, IJ A206 361 569/570 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 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 23rd day of June, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, JOHN M. WALKER, JR., RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ SONIA DIANETH VASQUEZ-VASQUEZ, ELBER EDELFO VASQUEZ-VASQUEZ, Petitioners, v. 20-1307 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Jose Perez, Esq., Syracuse, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Sabatino F. Leo, Assistant Director; Shahrzad Baghai, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) is DENIED. Petitioners Sonia Dianeth Vasquez-Vasquez and Elber Edelfo Vasquez-Vasquez, natives and citizens of Guatemala, seek review of a March 19, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming a January 8, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Sonia Dianeth Vasquez-Vasquez, Elber Edelfo Vasquez-Vasquez, Nos. A206 361 569/570 (B.I.A. Mar. 19, 2020), aff’g Nos. A206 361 569/570 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Jan. 8, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, reaching only the claims exhausted before the BIA and the grounds for denying those claims that the BIA relied on, i.e., the untimeliness of the asylum application and the failure to sufficiently 2 corroborate the domestic violence claim. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 122 (2d Cir. 2007). We deny the petition because the Petitioners have abandoned any challenge to the grounds on which the BIA relied in denying relief by failing to argue those grounds in their brief. See Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008); Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). Instead of challenging the reasons the BIA gave, Petitioners argue that Sonia demonstrated that the Guatemalan government is unable to protect domestic violence victims. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals