18-3587 Zavala Almendades v. Garland BIA Mulligan, IJ A212 948 056 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 4th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 VICTOR ZAVALA ALMENDADES, AKA 14 VICTOR ZAVALA, AKA VICTOR 15 ALMENDADES, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 18-3587 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, 21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Ramya Ravishankar, Janet E. 26 Sabel, Adriene Holder, Hasan 27 Shafiqullah, Julie Dona, Deepa 28 Vanamali, The Legal Aid Society, 29 New York, NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant 2 Director; Sunah Lee, Trial 3 Attorney, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is GRANTED. 11 Victor Zavala Almendades seeks review of a November 29, 12 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a March 15, 2018 decision 13 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering his removal to El 14 Salvador and denying his applications for asylum, withholding 15 of removal, and protection under the Convention Against 16 Torture (“CAT”). In re Victor Zavala Almendades, No. A 212 17 948 056 (B.I.A. Nov. 29, 2018), aff’g No. A 212 948 056 18 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Mar. 15, 2018). We assume the parties’ 19 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and 21 supplemented by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 22 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the 23 agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings 24 under the substantial evidence standard. Yan Chen v. 2 1 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005); Y.C. v. Holder, 2 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013). “[T]he administrative 3 findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable 4 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 5 contrary[.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 6 Alienage is a …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals