17-1667 Faruk v. Sessions BIA A087 998 865 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 3rd day of August, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 OMAR FARUK, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1667 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Omar Faruk, pro se, Brooklyn, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Anthony P. 27 Nicastro, Assistant Director; Dana 28 M. Camilleri, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of 31 Justice, Washington, DC. 32 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Omar Faruk, a native and citizen of 6 Bangladesh, seeks review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to 7 reopen. See In re Omar Faruk, No. A 087 998 865 (B.I.A. May 8 1, 2017). 9 In lieu of filing a brief, the Government moves for 10 summary denial of Faruk’s petition for review which is 11 warranted only if the petition is frivolous. See Pillay v. 12 INS, 45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir. 1995). Because Faruk has filed 13 his merits brief, we need not resolve whether his petition is 14 frivolous; rather, we treat the Government’s motion as a 15 response to that brief and deny the petition. In so doing, 16 we assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 17 and procedural history in this case. 18 Faruk argues that the BIA erred in not reviewing the 19 immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) adverse credibility 20 determination, on the basis of which the IJ denied his 21 underlying applications for asylum, withholding of removal, 2 1 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 2 But Faruk cannot now challenge that determination because 3 his petition is timely only as to the BIA’s denial of his 4 motion to reopen. See Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 233 (2d 5 Cir. 2005) (noting that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals