22-6043 Tupikin v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A215 928 942 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 12th day of July, two thousand twenty- 4 three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 NIKOLAY VLADIMIROVICH TUPIKIN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 22-6043 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: B. Alan Seidler, Esq., New York, NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 2 Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant 3 Director; Sarai M. Aldana, Trial Attorney, 4 Office of Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 8 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 9 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Nikolay Vladimirovich Tupikin, a native and citizen of Russia, 11 seeks review of a December 29, 2021, decision of the BIA affirming a June 30, 2021, 12 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) insofar as it denied relief under the 13 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 In re Nikolay Vladimirovich Tupikin, No. A 14 215 928 942 (B.I.A. Dec. 29, 2021), aff’g No. A 215 928 942 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 15 30, 2021). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 16 procedural history. 17 Tupikin challenges the agency’s denial of a continuance and raises an 18 ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 19 The Government asserts that our jurisdiction to review the denial of a 1 Tupikin did not challenge the denial of asylum and withholding of removal before the BIA and does not address those forms of relief in his brief here. 2 1 continuance is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law. Generally, 2 where, as here, a petitioner has been ordered removed for an aggravated felony, 3 our jurisdiction is so limited. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D). However, this 4 jurisdictional limitation on our review of removal orders based on criminal 5 grounds does not apply to review of CAT claims. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 6 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals