Tamay Tamay v. Bondi

── Tamay Tamay v. Bondi ── Case No.: 23-8058 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 02, 2026 Category: General 23-8058 Tamay Tamay v. Bondi BIA Prieto, IJ A220 224 309/310/311/312 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 2nd day of April, two thousand twenty- six. PRESENT: GERARD E. LYNCH, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, EUNICE C. LEE, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JORGE MANUEL TAMAY TAMAY, MARIA CLEMENCIA TAMAY SIGUENCIA, J.S.T.T., E.G.T.T., Petitioners, v. 23-8058 NAC PAMELA BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.* * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the case caption as set forth above. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Paul B. Grotas, Esq., The Grotas Firm, P.C., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian P. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director; Dana M. Camilleri, Senior 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. Petitioners Jorge Manuel Tamay Tamay, Maria Clemencia Tamay Siguencia, and their children, natives and citizens of Ecuador, seek review of a decision of the BIA affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Tamay Siguencia’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 In re Jorge Manuel Tamay Tamay, et al., Nos. A220 224 309/310/311/312 (B.I.A. Dec. 7, 2023), aff’g Nos. A220 224 309/310/311/312 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. May 31, 2022). We assume the parties’ 1Tamay Tamay and the children were derivative asylum applicants on Tamay Siguencia’s application. 2 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 Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. See Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). An applicant for asylum a