Gomez-Palchazaca v. Blanche

── Gomez-Palchazaca v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: General 24-497 Gomez-Palchazaca v. Blanche BIA Chung, IJ A246 159 365/372 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 28th day April, two thousand twenty- six. PRESENT: JOSEPH F. BIANCO, MICHAEL H. PARK, BETH ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ MARIA GOMEZ-PALCHAZACA, D. S.-G., Petitioners, v. 24-497 NAC TODD BLANCHE, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.* _____________________________________ * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. FOR PETITIONERS: Reuben S. Kerben, Kerben Law Firm, P.C., Kew Gardens, New York. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, Assistant Director; Christin M. Whitacre, 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 Maria Gomez-Palchazaca and her minor child, natives and citizens of Ecuador, seek review of a January 31, 2024 decision of the BIA affirming a September 1, 2023 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied Gomez- Palchazaca’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Gomez-Palchazaca, Nos. A 246 159 365/372 (B.I.A. Jan. 31, 2024), aff’g Nos. A 246 159 365/372 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 1, 2023). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan 2 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s nexus determination for substantial evidence. See Edimo-Doualla v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 276, 281–83 (2d Cir. 2006). Under the substantial evidence standard, “the 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); see also Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 146 S. Ct. 845, 851–53 (2026). An applicant for asylum and withhold