20-1657 Yunga-Mera v. Garland BIA Vomacka, IJ A206 451 010 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 22nd day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNY CHIN, 8 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _________________________________________ 12 13 FERNANDO YUNGA-MERA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-1657 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _________________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Borja, Esq., Borja Law 24 Firm, P.C., Jackson Heights, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; 28 Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Assistant 29 Director; Jessica A. Dawgert, 30 Senior Litigation Counsel, Office 31 of Immigration Litigation, United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, D.C. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Fernando Yunga-Mera, a native and citizen of 9 Ecuador, seeks review of a May 19, 2020 decision of the BIA 10 affirming a July 5, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge 11 (“IJ”), which denied asylum, withholding of removal, and 12 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 13 Fernando Yunga-Mera, No. A206 451 010 (B.I.A. May 19, 2020), 14 aff’g No. A206 451 010 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. July 5, 2018). We 15 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 16 procedural history. 17 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. 18 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 19 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 20 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 21 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (“We review factual findings 22 under the substantial evidence standard, treating them as 23 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 24 compelled to conclude to the contrary. Questions of law, as 2 1 well as the application of legal principles to undisputed 2 facts, are reviewed de novo.” (internal quotation marks and 3 citation omitted)). 4 As an initial matter, we do not consider the agency’s 5 denial of asylum because Yunga-Mera …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals