Bejarano-Martinez v. Garland

19-3551 Bejarano-Martinez v. Garland BIA Vomacka, IJ A206 630 062 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 April, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 GLADYS EMILIA BEJARANO-MARTINEZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-3551 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Bruno Joseph Bembi, Esq., 24 Hempstead, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan Davis, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Ernesto H. 28 Molina, Jr., Deputy Director; 1 Nancy N. Safavi, Trial Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Gladys Emilia Bejarano-Martinez, a native and 10 citizen of Honduras, seeks review of an October 1, 2019, 11 decision of the BIA affirming a February 26, 2018, decision 12 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), denying asylum, withholding 13 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 14 (“CAT”). In re Gladys Emilia Bejarano-Martinez, No. A 206 15 630 062 (B.I.A. Oct. 1, 2019), aff’g No. A 206 630 062 (Immig. 16 Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 26, 2018). We assume the parties’ 17 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 18 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 19 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 20 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 21 applicable standards of review are well established. See 22 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 23 (2d Cir. 2014) (reviewing factual findings for substantial 2 1 evidence and questions of law, including whether a proposed 2 group is cognizable, de novo). We find no error in the 3 agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT 4 relief. 5 To qualify for asylum and withholding of removal, an 6 applicant must establish either past persecution or a fear of 7 future persecution and that “race, …

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