Arriola-Perez v. Garland

20-2976 Arriola-Perez v. Garland BIA Fowler, IJ A209 240 418 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 22nd day of November, two thousand twenty- two. PRESENT: GERARD E. LYNCH, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JAIME DE JESUS ARRIOLA-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. 20-2976 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Stephen K. Tills, Esq., Orchard Park, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; John S. Hogan, Assistant Director; Stefanie A. Svoren-Jay, 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. Petitioner Jaime De Jesus Arriola-Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of an August 7, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming an August 14, 2019, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jaime De Jesus Arriola-Perez, No. A209 240 418 (B.I.A. Aug. 7, 2020), aff’g No. A209 240 418 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Aug. 14, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented and modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. “[T]he 2 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Accordingly, we review the agency’s decision for substantial evidence and must defer to the factfinder’s findings based on such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. . . . By contrast, we review legal conclusions de novo.” Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106, 113 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). As an initial matter, the agency did not err in rejecting Arriola-Perez’s argument that his Notice to Appear (“NTA”) was insufficient to vest jurisdiction with the IJ because it did not include the date and …

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