Cano v. Blanche

── Cano v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General 24-371 Herrera-Cano v. Blanche BIA Ling, IJ A220 453 590/591/592 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 29th day of May, two thousand twenty- six. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ BRANDONN MARTIN HERRERA- CANO, MARIA DE LOS ANGELES GODOY-VILLAGRAN, A.M.H.-G., 1 Petitioners, v. 24-371 NAC 1 We refer to the minor petitioner in this publicly accessible order by their initials only. TODD BLANCHE, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Japheth Matemu, Musa-Obregon Law, P.C., Maspeth, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director; Zachary S. Hughbanks, Trial Attorney; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, 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 Brandonn Martin Herrera-Cano, his wife Maria De Los Angeles Godoy-Villagran, and their minor child, natives and citizens of Guatemala, seek review of a January 22, 2024 decision of the BIA affirming an October 6, 2022 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Brandonn Martin Herrera-Cano, et al., Nos. A220 453 590/591/592 (B.I.A. Jan. 22, 2024), aff’g Nos. A220 453 590/591/592 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 6, 2022). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 2  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 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). An applicant for asylum and withholding of removal must establish either past persecution or a fear of future persecution and “that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see