21-6045 Villacorta v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A206 231 372 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 10th day of April, two thousand 4 twenty-three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 BETH ROBINSON, 10 ALISON J. NATHAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 JULIO CESAR VILLACORTA 14 INOCENTE, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 21-6045 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 1 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno J. Bembi, Hempstead, NY. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 4 General; Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director; 5 Nancy E. Friedman, Senior Litigation 6 Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, 7 United States Department of Justice, 8 Washington, DC. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 10 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 11 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Julio Cesar Villacorta Inocente (“Villacorta”), a native and citizen 13 of El Salvador, seeks review of a January 8, 2021, decision of the BIA affirming a 14 December 13, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his 15 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 16 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Julio Cesar Villacorta Inocente, No. A 206 231 372 17 (B.I.A. Jan. 8, 2021), aff’g No. A 206 231 372 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Dec. 13, 2018). We 18 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 20 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 21 2006). We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence. 22 See Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018). “[T]he administrative 2 1 findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 2 compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 3 A. Jurisdiction 4 Villacorta relies on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), to argue that the 5 IJ did not have jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because his notice to 6 appear (“NTA”) omitted the time and date of his hearing. This …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals