Ramirez v. Barr

17-1926 Ramirez v. Barr BIA Weisel, IJ A208 283 098/099 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 17th day of May, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SONIA YAMILETH RAMIREZ, 14 MARIA JOSE CASTELLANOS-RAMIREZ, 15 Petitioners, 16 17 v. 17-1926 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONERS: Nicholas J. Mundy, Brooklyn, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Brianne Whelan 28 Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 Lindsay Corliss, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 31 United States Department of 1 Justice, Washington, DC. 2 3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 4 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 5 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 6 is DENIED. 7 Petitioners Sonia Yamileth Ramirez (“Ramirez”) and Maria 8 Jose Castellanos-Ramirez, natives and citizens of Honduras, 9 seek review of a May 18, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming 10 an October 20, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 11 denying Ramirez’s application for asylum, withholding of 12 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 13 (“CAT”). In re Sonia Yamileth Ramirez, Maria Jose 14 Castellanos-Ramirez, Nos. A 208 283 098/099 (B.I.A. May 18, 15 2017), aff’g No. A 208 283 098/099 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 16 20, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 18 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 19 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 20 Cir. 2005). We review factual findings for substantial 21 evidence and legal issues de novo. See 8 U.S.C. 22 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 23 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 1 Asylum and Withholding of Removal 2 An applicant for asylum or withholding of removal “must 3 establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a 4 particular social group, or political opinion was or will 5 be at least one central reason for” the claimed 6 persecution. 8 ...

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