Vasquez v. Garland

20-2800 Vasquez v. Garland BIA Ruehle, IJ A209 449 607 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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 2nd day of November, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 BETH ROBINSON, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 UBERTO GALICIA VASQUEZ, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-2800 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Frederick P. Korkosz, Esq., 25 Albany, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Keith I. 1 McManus, Assistant Director; 2 Rachel L. Browning, Trial 3 Attorney, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 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 Uberto Galicia Vasquez, a native and citizen 12 of Guatemala, seeks review of an August 3, 2020, decision of 13 the BIA affirming an August 24, 2018, decision of an 14 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for 15 withholding of removal. In re Uberto Galicia Vasquez, No. A 16 209 449 607 (B.I.A. Aug. 3, 2020), aff’g No. A 209 449 607 17 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Aug. 24, 2018). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 20 BIA, i.e., minus the IJ’s adverse credibility determination 21 because the BIA assumed credibility. See Xue Hong Yang v. 22 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We 23 review factual findings for substantial evidence and 24 questions of law de novo. Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 2 1 (2d Cir. 2009); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“the 2 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 3 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 4 contrary”). 5 To qualify for withholding of removal, Vasquez had to 6 show past persecution or that he will “more likely than not” 7 be persecuted in the future. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); see Wei …

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