17-280 Pierre v. Sessions BIA Connelly, IJ A206 863 794 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 18th day of October, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RALPH K. WINTER, 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JOSEPH JUDE PIERRE, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-280 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Amanda E. Gray, Portland, OR. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Greg D. Mack, 27 Senior Litigation Counsel; Leslie 28 McKay, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 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 Joseph Jude Pierre, a native and citizen of 6 Haiti, seeks review of a December 30, 2016, decision of the 7 BIA affirming a March 27, 2015, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying Pierre’s application for asylum, 9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Joseph Jude Pierre, No. A 206 11 863 794 (B.I.A. Dec. 30, 2016), aff’g No. A 206 863 794 12 (Immig. Ct. Batavia Mar. 27, 2015). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 in this case. 15 We have reviewed the decisions of both the BIA and the 16 IJ. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008). 17 The applicable standards of review are well established. See 18 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 19 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 20 To establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of 21 removal, “the applicant must establish that race, religion, 22 nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 23 political opinion was or will be at least one central 2 1 reason for persecuting the applicant.” 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see id. § 1231(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. 3 § 1208.16(b); Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 178 4 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals