Lalvay-Lalvay v. Garland

20-1845 Lalvay-Lalvay v. Garland BIA Segal, IJ A206 838 242 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 22nd day of September, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 ALISON J. NATHAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 ANDRES LALVAY-LALVAY, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-1845 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Borja, Jackson Heights, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Stephen J. 1 Flynn, Assistant Director; Lynda 2 A. Do, Trial Attorney, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 Washington, DC. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Andres Lalvay-Lalvay (“Lalvay”), a native and 11 citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a May 27, 2020, decision 12 of the BIA denying his motion to remand and affirming a June 13 8, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his 14 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 15 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lalvay- 16 Lalvay, No. A206 838 242 (B.I.A. May 27, 2020), aff’g No. 17 A206 838 242 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 8, 2018). We assume 18 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 19 procedural history. 20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 21 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 22 Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s “legal conclusions de 23 novo, and its factual findings, including adverse credibility 24 determinations, under the substantial evidence standard.” 2 1 Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (quotation 2 marks omitted). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are 3 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be 4 compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. 5 § 1252(b)(4)(B). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to 6 remand for abuse of discretion. Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t 7 of Justice, 421 F.3d 149, …

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