21-6464 Sucuzhanay-Ortiz v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A208 188 206 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 27th day of October, two thousand 4 twenty-three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GERARD E. LYNCH, 8 MICHAEL H. PARK, 9 ALISON J. NATHAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 PABLO RAMIRO SUCUZHANAY- 14 ORTIZ, 15 Petitioner, 16 v. 21-6464 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Borja, Esq., Borja Law Firm, P.C., 24 Jackson Heights, NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 2 Attorney General; Carl McIntyre, Assistant 3 Director; Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Trial 4 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 5 United States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 8 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 9 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Pablo Ramiro Sucuzhanay-Ortiz, a native and citizen of Ecuador, 11 seeks review of a July 21, 2021, decision of the BIA affirming a January 28, 2019, 12 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum and 13 withholding of removal in part because the IJ found he was not credible. 1 In re 14 Pablo Ramiro Sucuzhanay-Ortiz, No. A 208 188 206 (B.I.A. July 21, 2021), aff’g No. A 15 208 188 206 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Jan. 28, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity 16 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 17 “Where, as here, the BIA's decision affirms the IJ's adverse credibility 18 finding without rejecting any portion of the IJ's decision, but emphasizing 1 Sucuzhanay-Ortiz also applied for relief under the Convention Against Torture, which the IJ denied. We do not address that form of relief because the BIA concluded that he had waived that issue on appeal, and he does not separately argue it here or challenge the BIA’s waiver determination. 2 1 particular aspects of the reasoning, we review both decisions.” Chen v. Garland, 75 2 F.4th 109, 112 (2d Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted), quoting Xiao Xing 3 Ni v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 260, 262 (2d Cir. 2007). We “afford particular deference to 4 …
Original document ES
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals