Varela-Lopez v. Garland

20-1284 Varela-Lopez v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A078 283 601 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 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 31st day of August, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 AYLEEN FRANCELES VARELA-LOPEZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-1284 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Jon E. Jessen, Esq., Law Offices 24 of Jon E. Jessen, LLC, Stamford, 25 CT. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Nancy E. 1 Friedman, Justin R. Markel, Senior 2 Litigation Counsel, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Ayleen Franceles Varela-Lopez, a native and 12 citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a March 18, 2020 decision 13 of the BIA affirming a June 29, 2018 decision of an 14 Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied her application for 15 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 16 Ayleen Franceles Varela-Lopez, No. A 078 283 601 (B.I.A. Mar. 17 18, 2020), aff’g No. A 078 283 601 (Immig. Ct. Hartford June 18 29, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 19 underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. 21 See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 22 (2d Cir. 2006). We review factual findings for substantial 23 evidence and questions of law de novo. See Yanqin Weng v. 24 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009); see also Nasrallah 2 1 v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020). “[T]he administrative 2 findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable 3 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 4 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). “A determination of what will 5 occur in the future and the degree of likelihood of the 6 occurrence has been regularly regarded as fact-finding.” Hui 7 Lin …

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