18-3771-cv Islam v. Quarantillo 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 for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 6th day of May, two thousand twenty. 4 5 PRESENT: RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 6 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 7 MICHAEL H. PARK, 8 Circuit Judges. 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10 MD AMINUL ISLAM, 11 12 Plaintiff-Appellant, 13 14 v. No. 18-3771-cv 15 16 ANDREA QUARANTILLO, DISTRICT 17 DIRECTOR, NEW YORK DISTRICT- 18 LEGALIZATION UNIT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 19 HOMELAND SECURITY, JOHN W. BIRD, 20 CHIEF, HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS BRANCH, 21 INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS DIVISION, 22 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 1 SECURITY, 2 3 Defendants-Appellees. 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Md. Aminul Islam, pro se, 6 Mirpur, Dhaka, Bangladesh. 7 8 FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Varuni Nelson, Rachel G. 9 Balaban, Alex S. Weinberg, 10 Assistant United States 11 Attorneys, for Richard P. 12 Donoghue, United States 13 Attorney for the Eastern 14 District of New York, 15 Brooklyn, New York. 16 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern 17 District of New York (Kiyo A. Matsumoto, Judge). 18 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 19 AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. 20 Md. Aminul Islam, proceeding pro se, appeals from the judgment of the 21 District Court (Matsumoto, J.) dismissing sua sponte his claims under 42 U.S.C. 22 § 1983. In 2018 Islam sued two Department of Homeland Security officials 23 claiming that they violated his constitutional, statutory, and human rights when 24 they denied his applications for permanent residence in 2009 and for 2 1 humanitarian parole in 2016. The District Court held that it lacked subject- 2 matter jurisdiction over Islam’s claims, and Islam appealed. We assume the 3 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, 4 to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. 5 In “a suit brought against immigration authorities[,] . . . whether the 6 district court has jurisdiction will turn on the substance of the relief that a 7 plaintiff is seeking.” Delgado v. Quarantillo, 643 F.3d 52, 55 (2d Cir. 2011). 8 Although Islam’s complaint claimed a violation of section 1983, in substance he 9 sought review of the 2009 and 2016 immigration decisions themselves. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals