Hernandez Lopez v. Garland

19-1712 Hernandez Lopez v. Garland BIA Christensen, IJ A087 509 782 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 19th day of January, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 JON O. NEWMAN, 10 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 JULISSA GABRIELA HERNANDEZ 15 LOPEZ, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 19-1712 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Daniel R. Spensieri, Law Office of 26 Daniel Spensieri PC, White Plains, 27 NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 2 General; Cindy S. Ferrier, 3 Assistant Director; Tracie N. 4 Jones, Trial Attorney, Office of 5 Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, D.C. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Julissa Gabriela Hernandez Lopez (“Hernandez 13 Lopez”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of 14 a May 17, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a January 25, 15 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum 16 and withholding of removal under the Immigration and 17 Nationality Act (“INA”) and relief under the Convention 18 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Julissa Gabriela Hernandez 19 Lopez, No. A087-509-782 (B.I.A. May 17, 2019), aff’g No. A087- 20 509-782 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 25, 2018). We assume the 21 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 22 history. For the following reasons, we deny Petitioner’s 23 petition for review. 24 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions 25 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 2 1 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review 2 the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and 3 its legal conclusions de novo. See Paloka v. Holder, 762 4 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (“Courts review de novo the legal 5 determination of whether a group constitutes a ‘particular 6 social group’ under the INA.”); Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales, 7 464 F.3d 276, 282 (2d Cir. 2006) (applying …

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