20-4258 Boda v. Garland BIA Schoppert, IJ A206 562 606 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 TO 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 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 3rd day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GERARD E. LYNCH, 8 RAYMOND J LOHIER, JR., 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 FRANCOIS BODA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-4258 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, Esq., New York, 24 NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 28 Assistant Director; Monica G. 1 Antoun, Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 9 Petitioner Francois Boda, a native and citizen of the 10 Central African Republic, seeks review of a December 9, 2020, 11 decision of the BIA affirming a November 1, 2018, decision of 12 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of 13 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 14 (“CAT”). In re Francois Boda, No. A206 562 606 (B.I.A. Dec. 15 9, 2020), aff’g No. A206 562 606 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 16 1, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17 underlying facts and procedural history. 18 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 19 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 20 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). For the following reasons, we 21 dismiss the petition as to asylum and deny it as to 22 withholding of removal and CAT protection. 2 1 Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s findings 2 regarding the timeliness of an asylum application and the 3 circumstances excusing the untimeliness is limited to 4 constitutional claims or questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. 5 §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D). In the present case, we lack 6 jurisdiction to review the denial of asylum because Boda 7 challenges the agency’s factual determination that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals