17-2546 Rios-Chirino v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A206 629 532 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 23rd day of May, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 EDUARDO DAVID RIOS-CHIRINO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-2546 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Boyle, North Haven, CT. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Mary Jane 27 Candaux, Assistant Director; 28 Stephanie E. Beckett, Trial 29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation, United States 31 Department of Justice, Washington, 32 DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Eduardo David Rios-Chirino, a native and 6 citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a July 18, 2017, decision 7 of the BIA affirming a November 21, 2016, decision of an 8 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Rios-Chirino’s application 9 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Eduardo David 11 Rios-Chirino, No. A 206 629 532 (B.I.A. July 18, 2017), aff’g 12 No. A 206 629 532 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Nov. 21, 2016). We 13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 14 procedural history in this case. 15 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and 16 supplemented by the BIA. Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 17 (2d Cir. 2007). The applicable standards of review are well 18 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. 19 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 20 To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of 21 removal, “the applicant must establish that race, religion, 22 nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 2 1 political opinion was or will be at least one central 2 reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); id. § 1231(b)(3)(A); see also Matter of 4 C-T-L-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 348 (BIA ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals