19-1793 Villegas Rocha v. Garland 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 25th day of January, two thousand twenty-two. Present: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, GUIDO CALABRESI, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ EDUARDO VILLEGAS ROCHA, AKA Eduardo Villagas, Petitioner, v. 19-1793 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ For Petitioner: Jon Eric Jessen, Law Offices Jon E. Jessen LLC, Stamford, CT. For Respondent: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration; Jonathan Robbins, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. Petitioner Eduardo Villegas Rocha (“Villegas Rocha”), a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a May 22, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a May 16, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Eduardo Villegas Rocha, No. A205-497-373 (B.I.A. May 22, 2019), aff’g No. A205-497-373 (Immig. Ct. Hartford May 16, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. For the following reasons, we dismiss in part and deny in part Villegas Rocha’s petition for review. * * * We have considered the IJ’s decision as supplemented and modified by the BIA’s decision. See Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Where the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ and merely supplements the IJ’s decision, . . . we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA.”); Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and the agency’s legal conclusions de novo. Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (“We review factual findings under the substantial evidence standard, [and] . . . [q]uestions of law, as well as the application of legal principles to undisputed facts, are reviewed de novo.” …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals