17-2875 Ricketts v. Barr BIA Wilson, IJ A061 134 923 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. 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 12th day of June, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ EMRON FITZROY RICKETTS, Petitioner, v. 17-2875 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Abdolreza Mazaheri, Sethi & Mazaheri, LLC, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; John S. Hogan, Assistant Director; Ashley Y. Martin, Trial Attorney; Sarah George, Law Clerk, Office of Immigration Litigation, 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 DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. Petitioner Emron Fitzroy Ricketts, a native and citizen of Jamaica, seeks review of an August 16, 2017 decision of the BIA affirming a December 19, 2016 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Emron Fitzroy Ricketts, No. A061-134-923 (B.I.A. Aug. 16, 2017), aff’g No. A 061-134-923 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 19, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history in this case, and the issues on appeal. We have considered the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Our jurisdiction to review a final order of removal of a person, like Ricketts, who is removable for an 2 aggravated felony, is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D). I. Withholding of Removal To demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal, Ricketts must “establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or w[ould] be at least one central reason for” his persecution. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); see also id. § 1231(b)(3)(A); Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 341, 348 (B.I.A. 2010) (applying “one central reason” standard to withholding of removal). Ricketts here claims withholding of removal based on his membership in a particular social group, which he defines as “police informants.” The ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals