Villatoro-Samayoa v. Garland

19-1366 Villatoro-Samayoa v. Garland BIA Ruehle, IJ A205 930 285/208 173 481 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 24th day of November, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 REENA RAGGI, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 EDELZAR VILLATORO-SAMAYOA, 14 ADILENY MARISOL CASTANEDA 15 MARTINEZ, A.K.A. ADELANY MARISOL 16 CASTANEDA-MARTINEZ 17 Petitioners, 18 19 v. 19-1366 20 NAC 21 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 22 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONERS: Stephen K. Tills, Esq., Orchard 27 Park, NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 2 General; Clair L. Workman, Senior 3 Litigation Counsel; John B. Holt, 4 Trial Attorney, Office of 5 Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioners Edelzar Villatoro-Samayoa and Adileny 13 Marisol Castaneda Martinez, natives and citizens of 14 Guatemala, seek review of a December 18, 2019, decision of 15 the BIA affirming a November 13, 2017, decision of an 16 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 17 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 18 (“CAT”). In re Edelzar Villatoro-Samayoa, Adileny Marisol 19 Castaneda Martinez, No. A 205 930 285/208 173 481 (B.I.A. Dec. 20 18, 2019), aff’g No. A 205 930 285/208 173 481 (Immig. Ct. 21 Buffalo Nov. 13, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity 22 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 23 We review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA and 24 assume credibility as the BIA did. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. 25 Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The 2 1 applicable standards of review are well established. See 2 Yanqin Weng v. Gonzales, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009) 3 (reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and 4 questions of law and application of law to fact de novo). 5 Petitioners’ claim that the immigration court lacked 6 jurisdiction over their proceedings is foreclosed by Banegas 7 Gomez v. Barr, 922 F.3d 101, …

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