Rodriguez-Figueroa v. Garland

19-4233 Rodriguez-Figueroa v. Garland BIA Baumgarten, IJ A215 673 382 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 TO 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 September, two thousand twenty-three. Present: DENNY CHIN, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ELMER AUGUSTO RODRIGUEZ- FIGUEROA, Petitioner, v. 19-4233 MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _____________________________________ For Petitioner: JAMES Y. PARK (Edmund Polubinski III, Daniel S. Magy, on the brief), Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York, NY For Respondent: JOANNA L. WATSON, Trial Attorney (Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, on the brief), 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 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Petitioner Elmer Augusto Rodriguez-Figueroa, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a December 5, 2019, decision of the BIA affirming a June 24, 2019, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Elmer Augusto Rodriguez-Figueroa, No. A 215 673 382 (B.I.A. Dec. 5, 2019), aff’g No. A 215 673 382 (Immig. Ct. Batavia June 24, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the case. The IJ denied asylum and withholding of removal on several grounds. First, the IJ concluded that although Rodriguez-Figueroa’s testimony was generally credible, he failed to sufficiently corroborate his testimony regarding persecution. The IJ noted in the alternative that even if his testimony was sufficiently corroborated, his testimony failed to demonstrate a nexus between any past persecution and his membership in a legally cognizable social group. The IJ also concluded that any fear of harm based on past persecution was no longer well-founded due to lack of evidence that the Honduran government was unwilling or unable to protect him and that relocation would be futile. The IJ also denied Rodriguez-Figueroa’s CAT claim because he failed to sufficiently corroborate his testimony and accordingly did not establish past persecution under the less demanding asylum standard. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision regarding the asylum and withholding of removal claims based on Rodriguez-Figueroa’s failure to demonstrate a …

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