17-3296 Yokoyama v. Barr BIA Mulligan, IJ A088 445 387 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 10th day of December, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MICHI YOKOYAMA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-3296 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Matthew L. Guadagno, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 26 General; Keith I. McManus, 27 Assistant Director; Claire L. 28 Workman, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 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 Petitioner Michi Yokoyama, a native and citizen of 6 Japan, seeks review of a September 15, 2017, decision of the 7 BIA reversing a June 7, 2016 decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) granting Yokoyama’s application for asylum. In 9 re Michi Yokoyama, No. A 088 445 387 (B.I.A. Sept. 15, 10 2017), rev’g No. A 088 445 387 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 7, 11 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 12 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 13 We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial 14 evidence and its legal conclusions, including “whether a 15 group constitutes a ‘particular social group’ under the 16 [Immigration and Nationality Act],” de novo. Paloka v. 17 Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014); see also 8 U.S.C. 18 § 1252(b)(4)(B). Because the BIA reversed the IJ’s 19 decision, we review the BIA’s decision as the final agency 20 decision. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 21 Cir. 2005). 2 1 Yokoyama asserted, and the IJ agreed, that she would be 2 persecuted on account of her membership in the social group 3 of “women accused of crimes in Japan.” 4 We conclude that the BIA did not err in rejecting 5 Yokoyama’s initial argument that the Department of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals