Hernandez-Lopez v. Garland

20-2821(L) Hernandez-Lopez v. Garland BIA Poczter, IJ A209 222 330/209 217 375 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 Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 27th day of January, two thousand twenty-three. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 GUIDO CALABRESI, 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 KEVIN JONATHAN HERNANDEZ- 13 LOPEZ, TELMA ELIZABETH LOPEZ- 14 BARRIOS, 15 16 Petitioners, 17 18 v. 20-2821(L), 19 20-2823(Con) 20 NAC 21 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 22 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 24 Respondent. 1 _____________________________________ 2 3 FOR PETITIONERS: Gary J. Yerman, Esq., New York, NY. 4 5 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 6 General; Jeffrey R. Leist, Senior Litigation 7 Counsel; Raya Jarawan, Trial Attorney, Office 8 of Immigration Litigation, United States 9 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of Board of 11 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 12 AND DECREED that the petitions for review are DENIED. 13 Kevin Jonathan Hernandez-Lopez and his mother, Telma Elizabeth 14 Lopez-Barrios, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of July 28, 15 2020 decisions of the BIA affirming a September 11, 2018 decision of an 16 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their claims for asylum, withholding of 17 removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 In re 18 Kevin Jonathan Hernandez-Lopez, Telma Elizabeth Lopez-Barrios, Nos. A209 222 19 330/209 217 375 (B.I.A. July 28, 2020), aff’g Nos. A209 222 330/209 217 375 (Immigr. 1In this summary order, we primarily refer to Ms. Lopez-Barrios because her son’s claims are based on the same facts as hers. 2 1 Ct. N.Y.C. Sept. 11, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 2 facts, procedural history, and issues on petition for review. 3 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See Yun-Zui Guan 4 v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the Agency’s factual 5 findings for substantial evidence, and we treat them as “conclusive unless any 6 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” See 8 7 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We likewise review the Agency’s nexus determination for 8 substantial evidence. See Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 276, 282–83 (2d …

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