De La Cruz v. Blanche

── De La Cruz v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: June 01, 2026 Category: General 23-7919 Avila-De La Cruz v. Blanche BIA Verrillo, IJ A206 448 567 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 1st day of June, two thousand twenty- six. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, ALISON J. NATHAN, MARIA ARAÚJO KAHN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ VICTOR AVILA-DE LA CRUZ, Petitioner, v. 23-7919 NAC TODD BLANCHE, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Jon E. Jessen, Law Offices of Jon E. Jessen,  LLC, Stamford, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Vanessa M. Otero, Senior Litigation Counsel; Rachel P. Berman- Vaporis, 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. Petitioner Victor Avila-De La Cruz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a November 2, 2023, order of the BIA affirming a June 2, 2021, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Victor Avila-De La Cruz, No. A206 448 567 (B.I.A. Nov. 2, 2023), aff’g No. A206 448 567 (Immig. Ct. Hartford June 2, 2021). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Under the circumstances, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the IJ’s nexus finding that the BIA did not reach. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We review fact-finding “under the substantial evidence standard,” and generally review questions of law 2 de novo. Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 76 (2d Cir. 2018); see also Urias- Orellana v. Bondi, 146 S. Ct. 845, 851 (2026) (clarifying that some applications of law to fact, including “agency’s determination whether a given set of undisputed facts rises to the level of persecution,” are reviewed for substantial evidence). “[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). I. Asylum and Withholding of Removal A