Vivar Lliguin v. Rosen

V

18-3449 Vivar Lliguin v. Rosen BIA Laforest, IJ A206 445 168 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 13th day of January, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MARIA OLGA VIVAR LLIGUIN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3449 17 NAC 18 JEFFREY A. ROSEN, ACTING UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Anthony Borja, Esq., 24 Borja Law Firm P.C., Jackson 25 Heights, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; Keith 29 I. McManus , Assistant Director; 1 Nelle M. Seymour, Trial Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Maria Olga Vivar Lliguin, a native and citizen 10 of Ecuador, seeks review of an October 31, 2018, decision of 11 the BIA affirming an October 27, 2017, decision of an 12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 14 (“CAT”). 1 In re Maria Olga Vivar Lliguin, No. A 206 445 168 15 (B.I.A. Oct. 31, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 445 168 (Immig. Ct. 16 N.Y. City Oct. 27, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity 17 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 18 We have reviewed the decision of the IJ as supplemented 19 by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 20 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 21 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Paloka v. Holder, 22 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014) (reviewing factual findings 1 Vivar Lliguin does not challenge the denial of her CAT claim. 2 1 for substantial evidence and questions of law, including 2 whether a proposed particular social group is cognizable, de 3 novo); Gjolaj v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 4 468 F.3d 140, 143 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing nexus …

Original document

Add comment

By Tucker

Recent Posts

Recent Comments