20-2240 Villalta Rios v. Garland BIA Mulligan, IJ A078 219 112 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 Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 3 New York, on the 9th day of March, two thousand twenty-three. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 GUIDO CALABRESI, 7 MICHAEL H. PARK, 8 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 Marvin Moises Villalta Rios, AKA Marvin Rios, 13 AKA Marvin Moises Villalta Escobar, 14 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18 20-2240 19 Merrick B. Garland, United 20 States Attorney General, 21 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Robert A. Cini, Esq., New York, NY. 26 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Dawn S. Conrad, 3 Senior Litigation Counsel, Remi Da 4 Rocha-Afodu, Trial Attorney, 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 Board of Immigration 10 Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the 11 petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 12 Petitioner Marvin Moises Villalta Rios, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review 13 of a June 23, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming a January 3, 2020, decision of an Immigration 14 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention 15 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Marvin Moises Villalta Rios, No. A 078 219 112 (B.I.A. June 23, 16 2020), aff’g No. A 078 219 112 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Jan. 3, 2020). We assume the parties’ 17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 18 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 19 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The standards of review are well established. 20 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 21 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary[.]”); Paloka v. Holder, 762 22 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of 23 law de novo). 24 I. Withholding of Removal 25 Villalta Rios asserted a fear of persecution and torture based on his prior resistance to gang 26 recruitment …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals