Castillo-Ovalle v. Garland

20-3392 Castillo-Ovalle v. Garland BIA Ruehle, IJ A200 589 638 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 6th day of June, two thousand twenty- 4 three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MYNOR GIOVANNI CASTILLO- 14 OVALLE, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-3392 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 1 FOR PETITIONER: Jose Perez, Esq., Law Offices of Jose Perez, 2 P.C., Syracuse, NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 5 General; Kohsei Ugumori, Senior Litigation 6 Counsel; Nehal H. Kamani, Attorney, Office 7 of Immigration Litigation, United States 8 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 10 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 11 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Mynor Giovanni Castillo-Ovalle, a native and citizen of 13 Guatemala, seeks review of a September 2, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming a 14 September 12, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his 15 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 16 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Castillo-Ovalle, No. A 200 589 638 (B.I.A. Sept. 2, 17 2020), aff’g No. A 200 589 638 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Sept. 12, 2018). We assume the 18 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision without additional 20 analysis and summarily rejected Castillo-Ovalle’s appellate arguments, we have 21 reviewed the IJ’s decision directly. See Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 489 F.3d 22 517, 523 (2d Cir. 2007). We review the IJ’s factual findings for substantial 2 1 evidence, and we review questions of law and the application of law to fact de 2 novo. Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009); see also 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 4 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”). 5 To establish eligibility for asylum, Castillo-Ovalle had to show that he 6 suffered …

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