Lopez Marin v. Garland

20-3291 Lopez Marin v. Garland BIA Navarro, IJ A046 002 995 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 22nd day of November, two thousand twenty- two. PRESENT: GERARD E. LYNCH, MICHAEL H. PARK, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ HERNAN ANTONIO LOPEZ MARIN, Petitioner, v. 20-3291 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Steven Haskos, Esq., Law Office of Craig Relles, White Plains, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Jonathan Robbins, Senior Litigation Counsel; Dana M. Camilleri, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Hernan Antonio Lopez Marin, a native and citizen of Colombia, seeks review of an August 27, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming a May 24, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Herman Antonio Lopez Marin, No. A046 002 995 (B.I.A. Aug. 27, 2020), aff’g No. A046 002 995 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 24, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1252(b)(4)(B). “Accordingly, we review the agency’s decision for substantial evidence and must defer to the factfinder’s findings based on such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. . . . By contrast, we review legal conclusions de novo.” Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106, 113 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1694 (2020) (holding that removability on criminal grounds does not limit our jurisdiction to review the denial of CAT relief). The agency did not err in finding that Lopez Marin failed to establish a sufficient likelihood of torture in …

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