18-3433-ag Mugiraneza v. Barr 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. 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 9th day of July, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ EVARISTE MUGIRANEZA, Petitioner, v. No. 18-3433-ag WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ APPEARING FOR PETITIONER: Alessandra DeBlasio, New York, New York. APPEARING FOR RESPONDENT: Brianne Whelan Cohen, Trial Attorney (John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, on the brief) for Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, District of Columbia. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision in this matter is DENIED. Petitioner Evariste Mugiraneza, a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (“Congo”), seeks review of a BIA decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying him relief from removal in the form of either asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Evariste Mugiraneza, No. A 212 535 803 (B.I.A. Oct. 26, 2018), aff’g No. A 212 535 803 (Immig. Ct. Batavia May 30, 2018). Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). This court earlier upheld the agency’s determination that Mugiraneza is ineligible for asylum or withholding relief based on his New York conviction for second-degree assault, a crime he committed in a domestic altercation that left his wife with a fractured spine. See Mugiraneza v. Barr, No. 18-3433-ag, ECF No. 61 (2d Cir. Feb. 28, 2019) (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2)). Accordingly, we here consider only Mugiraneza’s petition to review the agency’s denial of CAT relief. The jurisdiction-stripping provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) does not limit that review. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020). “In reviewing denials of . . . claims for relief under the CAT, we apply the substantial evidence standard to the agency’s factual findings, which we will uphold unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Scarlett v. Barr, 2 957 F.3d 316, 326 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals