Pinedo Vasquez v. Garland

19-2132 Pinedo Vasquez v. Garland BIA Ruehle, IJ A099 198 314 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 17th day of August, two thousand 4 twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CAROLA CLAUDETTE PINEDO 14 VASQUEZ, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-2132 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 1 _____________________________________ 2 3 FOR PETITIONER: Frederick P. Korkosz, Albany, NY. 4 5 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; 6 Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Robert 7 Michael Stalzer, Trial Attorney, Office of 8 Immigration Litigation, United States 9 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 11 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 12 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Carola Claudette Pinedo Vasquez, a native and citizen of Peru, 14 seeks review of a decision of the BIA affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge 15 (“IJ”) denying asylum and withholding of removal.* In re Carola Claudette Pinedo 16 Vasquez, No. A 099 198 314 (B.I.A. June 26, 2019), aff’g No. A 099 198 314 (Immig. 17 Ct. Buffalo Jan. 9, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 18 facts and procedural history. 19 We review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen 20 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review findings of fact for * Pinedo Vasquez does not challenge the agency’s denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. 2 1 substantial evidence and review questions of law and the application of law to 2 facts de novo. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009); see also 3 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive 4 unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 5 contrary.”). The likelihood of a future event is a finding of fact. See Hui Lin 6 Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 2012). 7 To obtain asylum, an applicant must establish that she …

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