Baranovic v. Garland

20-1478 Baranovic v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A208 112 914/915/916/917 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 13th day of February, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 MYRNA PÉREZ, 10 ALISON J. NATHAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 JAN BARANOVIC, ERIKA 15 BARANOVICOVA, AKA ERICA 16 BARANOVICOVA, JAN BARANOVIC, 17 J.B., 18 Petitioners, 19 20 v. 20-1478 21 NAC 22 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 23 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 24 Respondent. 25 _____________________________________ 26 27 1 FOR PETITIONERS: Justin Conlon, Law Offices of 2 Justin Conlon, Hartford, CT 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 5 Attorney General; Melissa Neiman- 6 Kelting, Assistant Director; 7 Giovanni B. Di Maggio, Trial 8 Attorney, Office of Immigration 9 Litigation, United States 10 Department of Justice, Washington, 11 DC 12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 13 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 14 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 15 is DENIED. 16 Petitioners Jan Baranovic (“Jan Sr.”), Erika 17 Baranovicova, and their children Jan (“Jan Jr.”) and J.B., 18 natives and citizens of Slovakia, seek review of an April 13, 19 2020 decision of the BIA affirming an April 3, 2018 decision 20 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for 21 asylum and withholding of removal. 1 In re Jan Baranovic, 22 Erika Baranovicova, Jan Baranovic, J.B., Nos. A 208 112 23 914/915/916/917 (B.I.A. Apr. 13, 2020), aff’g No. A 208 112 24 914/915/916/917 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Apr. 3, 2018). We 1Petitioners have explicitly waived relief under the Convention Against Torture. 2 1 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 2 procedural history. 3 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions 4 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 5 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review 6 factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of 7 law de novo. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 8 (2d Cir. 2009). 9 Petitioners sought asylum and withholding of removal 10 based on the fact that Jan Jr. was targeted by a pedophile 11 ring in Slovakia. They …

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