19-369 Fremont v. Barr BIA Connelly, IJ A078 370 967 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 20th day of August, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, DENNY CHIN, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ GARY FREMONT, Petitioner, v. 19-369 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Julia B. Beskin, Owen F. Roberts, Avi Panth, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director; Robert Michael Stalzer, Trial Attorney, 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 DENIED. Petitioner Gary Fremont, a native and citizen of Haiti, seeks review of a January 15, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a September 11, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering Fremont’s removal to Haiti for a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”), finding Fremont competent to proceed, and denying Fremont’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Gary Fremont, No. A 078 370 967 (B.I.A. Jan. 15, 2019), aff’g No. A 078 370 967 (Immig. Ct. Batavia Sept. 11, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” 2 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law and the application of law to undisputed facts de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009); see also Diop v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 70, 75 (4th Cir. 2015) (“Competency has long been considered an issue of fact.”). Removability We identify no error in the agency’s conclusion that Fremont is removable for having committed a CIMT within five years of the date of his admission. The Government must prove removability by clear and convincing evidence. Singh v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 526 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 2008). When the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals