Medrano-Sanchez v. Barr

18-2818 Medrano-Sanchez v. Barr BIA Kolbe, IJ A206 772 805 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 14th day of September, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ADAN FRANCISCO MEDRANO-SANCHEZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-2818 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: William M. Brooks, Immigration 24 Law Clinic, Touro College, Jacob 25 D. Fuchsberg Law Center, Central 26 Islip, NY. 27 28 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; John S. Hogan, 3 Assistant Director; Lindsay 4 Corliss, Trial Attorney, Office of 5 Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, DC. 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 Adan Francisco Medrano-Sanchez, a native and 13 citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a September 18, 2018, 14 decision of the BIA affirming an April 20, 2018, decision of 15 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Medrano-Sanchez’s 16 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 17 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Adan 18 Francisco Medrano-Sanchez, No. A 206 772 805 (B.I.A. Sept. 18, 19 2018), aff’g No. A 206 772 805 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 20, 20 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 21 underlying facts and procedural history. 22 We review both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake 23 of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 24 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The standards of review are 25 well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he 2 1 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 2 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 3 contrary.”); Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 325, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) 4 (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and 5 questions of law and application of law to fact de novo). 6 To obtain asylum or withholding of removal, Medrano- 7 Sanchez was ...

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