Valenzuela Arias v. Garland

20-1909 Valenzuela Arias v. Garland BIA Farber, IJ A055 118 087 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 20th day of September, two thousand 4 twenty-three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 REENA RAGGI, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 BETH ROBINSON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SANTO VALENZUELA ARIAS, AKA 14 SANTO ZEQUIEL VALENZUELA 15 ARIAS, AKA SANTO EZEQUIEL 16 VALENZUELA ARIAS, 17 Petitioner, 18 19 v. 20-1909 20 NAC 21 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 22 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 1 FOR PETITIONER: Ellen Kathleen Pachnanda, Meghan L. 2 McCarthy, Brooklyn Defender Services, 3 Brooklyn, NY; John M. Tanski, Axinn, Veltrop 4 & Harkrider LLP, Hartford, CT; Craig M. 5 Reiser, Eva H. Yung, Axinn, Veltrop & 6 Harkrider LLP, New York, NY. 7 8 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 9 General; Lindsay B. Glauner, Senior 10 Litigation Counsel; Craig A. Newell, Jr., Trial 11 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 12 United States Department of Justice, 13 Washington, DC. 14 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 15 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 16 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 17 Petitioner Santo Valenzuela Arias, a native and citizen of the Dominican 18 Republic, seeks review of a June 3, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming an August 19 16, 2019 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering his removal and denying 20 his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 21 Santo Valenzuela Arias, No. A 055 118 087 (B.I.A. June 3, 2020), aff’g No. A 055 118 22 087 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 16, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with 23 the underlying facts and procedural history. 24 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 2 1 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2 2006). We review factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law 3 de novo. 1 See Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014); Perriello v. 4 Napolitano, 579 F.3d 135, 138 (2d Cir. 2009) (reviewing de novo claim that IJ “erred 5 as a …

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