19-4118 Marte Feliz v. Barr BIA Sagerman, IJ A208 910 462 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 20th day of August, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 PEDRO ANTONIO MARTE FELIZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-4118 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Pedro Antonio Marte Feliz, pro 24 se, Alvarado, TX. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Bernard A. 28 Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel; 1 Jaclyn E. Shea, Trial Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 1 9 Petitioner Pedro Antonio Marte Feliz, a native and 10 citizen of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of a November 11 29, 2019, decision of the BIA affirming a June 13, 2019, 12 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Marte Feliz’s 13 application for relief under the Convention Against Torture 14 (“CAT”). In re Marte Feliz, No. A 208 910 462 (B.I.A. Nov. 15 29, 2019), aff’g No. A 208 910 462 (Immig. Ct. Napanoch June 16 13, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17 underlying facts and procedural history. 18 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 19 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 20 Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo 1 Marte Feliz moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Because the parties have completed briefing notwithstanding that pending motion, we GRANT the IFP motion and proceed to consider the petition on the merits. 2 1 and its factual findings under the substantial evidence 2 standard. Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 2013). 3 To receive protection under the CAT, an applicant must 4 “establish that it is more likely than not that he or she 5 would be ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals