Aguilar Lemus v. Barr

17-1818 Aguilar Lemus v. Barr BIA Schoppert, IJ A073 649 199 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. 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 9th day of October, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, GERARD E. LYNCH, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JORGE AGUILAR LEMUS, Petitioner, v. 17-1818 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director; Vanessa M. Otero, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 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 DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. Petitioner Jorge Aguilar Lemus (“Lemus”), a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a June 2, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a September 28, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lemus’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. In re Jorge Aguilar Lemus, No. A 073 649 199 (B.I.A. June 2, 2017), aff’g No. A 073 649 199 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 28, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). A. Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Relief The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014). An asylum applicant must show that he has suffered past persecution, or has a well-founded fear of future persecution, on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 2 political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Lemus did not establish past persecution. Although he testified about the Salvadoran civil war and its effect on his family, he stated that he left El Salvador because of poverty and did not identify any persecution that he had suffered as a result of the war. Lemus argues that the general chaos and fear created by the civil war and ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals