16-1716 Rocha v. Sessions BIA Straus, IJ A200 026 570 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 January, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SOLANGE ROCHA, AKA SOLANGE 14 APARECIDA ROCHA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-1716 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Glenn T. Terk, Wethersfield, CT. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General, Carl McIntyre, 28 Assistant Director, Brooke M. 29 Maurer, Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 Washington, 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 Solange Rocha, a native and citizen of 6 Brazil, illegally reentered the United States after being 7 removed in 2009. She seeks review of a May 2, 2016, 8 decision of the BIA affirming a March 31, 2914, decision of 9 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Rocha’s application for 10 withholding of removal.1 In re Solange Rocha, No. A200 026 11 570 (B.I.A. May 2, 2016), aff’g No. A200 026 570 (Immig. 12 Ct. Hartford Mar. 31, 2014). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 14 history of this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA and assume, as the 17 BIA did, that Rocha identified a cognizable social group. 18 See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 19 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the issue is whether 20 Rocha established that she fell within that social group. 1Rocha does not challenge the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. 2 1 To succeed on a claim for withholding of removal, the 2 applicant “must demonstrate that race, religion, 3 nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 4 political opinion was or will be at least one central 5 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals