Gonzalez Gonzalez v. Blanche

── Gonzalez Gonzalez v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 13, 2026 Category: General 23-7916 Gonzalez Gonzalez v. Blanche BIA Mungoven, IJ A220 221 327/328 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 13th day of April, two thousand 4 twenty-six. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 10 ALISON J. NATHAN, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 DIANA CAROLINA GONZALEZ 15 GONZALEZ, A.S.T. G., 16 Petitioners, 17 18 v. 23-7916 19 NAC 20 TODD BLANCHE, ACTING UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent.* 23 _____________________________________ 24 FOR PETITIONERS: Michael Borja, Borja Law Firm, P.C., Jackson  1 Heights, NY. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 4 Attorney General; Greg D. Mack, Senior 5 Litigation Counsel; Shahrzad Baghai, Trial 6 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 7 United States Department of Justice, 8 Washington, DC. 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 10 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 11 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 12 Petitioners Diana Carolina Gonzalez Gonzalez and her minor daughter, 13 both natives and citizens of Ecuador, seek review of a November 1, 2023, decision 14 of the BIA affirming a September 28, 2022, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 15 denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 16 Against Torture (“CAT”). 1 In re Gonzalez Gonzalez, Nos. A 220 221 327/328 (B.I.A. 17 Nov. 1, 2023), aff’g Nos. A 220 221 327/328 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Sept. 28, 2022). We 18 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. * The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set out above to reflect the abbreviation of the minor Petitioner’s name. 1 We principally refer to Gonzalez Gonzalez because both Petitioners’ applications were based on her affidavit. 2  1 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan 2 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review fact-finding under 3 the substantial evidence standard, and we review questions of law and the 4 application of law to fact de novo. Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 5 2018). “[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless