Lopez Canas v. Barr

19-634 Lopez Canas v. Barr BIA Ruehle, IJ A098 589 755 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: PIERRE N. LEVAL, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JOSE HENRY LOPEZ CANAS, Petitioner, v. 19-634 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: ROBERT F. GRAZIANO, Law Office of Robert F. Graziano, Buffalo, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: LINDSAY CORLISS (Joseph H. Hunt; Brianne Whelan Cohen, on the brief), 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 Jose Henry Lopez Canas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a March 4, 2019, decision of the BIA affirming an August 29, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lopez Canas’s application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jose Henry Lopez Canas, No. A 098 589 755 (B.I.A. Mar. 4, 2019), aff’g No. A 098 589 755 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 29, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Because the BIA assumed credibility, we assume credibility as to past events and Lopez Canas’s subjective fear of future harm. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271–72 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (“Courts review de novo the legal determination of whether a group constitutes a ‘particular social group’ . . . .”); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 2 F.3d 510, 513, 516 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing denial of CAT protection under the substantial evidence standard). Withholding of Removal To demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal, an “applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a ...

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