20-2076 Vides v. Garland BIA Mulligan, IJ A213 119 468 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. 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 12th day of September, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 MYRNA PÉREZ, 10 ALISON J. NATHAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 RENEN VIDES, AKA RENEN OSIEL 15 VIDES CASTRO, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 20-2076 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Sharon Katz, Luca Marzorati, 26 Davis Polk & Wardell LLP, New 27 York, NY. 28 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Deputy 2 Assistant Attorney General; 3 Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant 4 Director; Kristen H. Blosser, 5 Trial Attorney, Office of 6 Immigration Litigation, United 7 States Department of Justice, 8 Washington, 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 Renen Vides, a native and citizen of 14 Guatemala, seeks review of a June 2, 2020, decision of the 15 BIA affirming a November 20, 2019, decision of an Immigration 16 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for relief under the 17 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Renen Vides, No. 18 A 213 119 468 (B.I.A. June 2, 2020), aff’g No. A 213 119 468 19 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 20, 2019). We assume the parties’ 20 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 1 21 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. 22 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 23 Cir. 2006). We review factual findings for substantial 1 We commend counsel for both parties for their excellent briefs in this matter. 2 1 evidence and questions of law de novo. See Yanqin Weng v. 2 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). “The agency’s 3 ‘findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable 4 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” 5 Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020) (quoting 8 6 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). “A determination of what will occur 7 in the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals