18-23 Villanueva-Ramirez v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A206 798 204/205 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 30th day of May, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MARIA IDALIA VILLANUEVA-RAMIREZ, 14 AKA MARIA IDILIA VILLANUEVA-RAMIREZ, 15 JOSE ANDRES FRANCO-VILLANUEVA, 16 Petitioners, 17 18 v. 18-23 19 NAC 20 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 21 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONERS: Perham Makabi, Kew Gardens, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Terri J. 29 Scadron, Assistant Director; Lisa 30 Morinelli, Trial Attorney, Office 31 of Immigration Litigation, United 32 States Department of Justice, 33 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioners Maria Idalia Villanueva-Ramirez and Jose 6 Andres Franco-Villanueva, natives and citizens of Honduras, 7 seek review of a December 7, 2017, decision of the BIA 8 affirming a February 23, 2017, decision of an Immigration 9 Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and 10 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 11 Maria Idalia Villanueva-Ramirez, Jose Andres Franco- 12 Villanueva, Nos. A206 798 204/205 (B.I.A. Dec. 7, 2017), aff’g 13 Nos. A206 798 204/205 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 23, 2017). 14 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 15 and procedural history in this case. 16 We have reviewed the both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 17 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 18 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 19 applicable standards of review are well established. See 20 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 21 (2d Cir. 2014). 22 The sole issue before us is whether Villanueva-Ramirez 2 1 satisfied her burden of proof for asylum and withholding of 2 removal by establishing that the harassment she experienced 3 and harm she fears in Honduras is on account of her membership 4 in a cognizable social group, namely single ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals