Lucero-Lucero v. Bondi

── Lucero-Lucero v. Bondi ── Case No.: 23-8092 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: March 18, 2026 Category: General 23-8092 Lucero-Lucero v. Bondi BIA Lazare-Raphael, IJ A220 999 551/555/585/586/587 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 18th day of March, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ LUIS ALFREDO LUCERO-LUCERO, GLADIS PIEDAD FAREZ-ONCE, ERICK ALEXANDER LUCERO-FAREZ, ABRAHAM MATEO LUCERO-FAREZ, EIDAN ALFREDO LUCERO-FAREZ, Petitioners, v. 23-8092 NAC PAMELA BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Judy Resnick, Law Office of Judy Resnick, Far Rockaway, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Keith I. McManus, Assistant Director, Rosanne M. Perry, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Luis Alfredo Lucero-Lucero, his wife Gladis Piedad Farez-Once, and their minor children, all natives and citizens of Ecuador, seek review of a decision of the BIA dated December 4, 2023, that affirmed a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) dated December 8, 2022, denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Luis Alfredo Lucero-Lucero et al., Nos. A220-999-551/555/585/586/587 (B.I.A. Dec. 4, 2023), aff’g Nos. A220-999-551/555/585/586/587 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Dec. 8, 2022). 1 1 We do not address CAT relief because Lucero-Lucero does not address that issue in his brief. See Debique v. Garland, 58 F.4th 676, 684 (2d Cir. 2023) (“We consider abandoned any claims not adequately presented in an appellant’s brief, and an appellant’s failure to make legal or factual arguments constitutes abandonment.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. “When the BIA issues an opinion, the opinion becomes the basis for judicial review of the decision of which the alien is complaining.” Singh v. Bondi, 139 F.4th 189, 196 (2d Cir. 2025) (quoting Bhagtana v. Garland, 93 F.4th 592, 593 (2d Cir. 2023)). Neverth