18-2773 Lekocaj v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A206 189 345 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 9th day of October, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ARJANE LEKOCAJ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-2773 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael P. DiRaimondo, Marialaina 24 L. Masi, Stacy A. Huber, 25 DiRaimondo & Masi, PC, Bohemia, 26 NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Matthew A. Connelly, Senior 1 Litigation Counsel, Lisa M. 2 Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, 4 for Ethan P. Davis, Acting 5 Assistant Attorney General, Civil 6 Division, United States Department 7 of Justice, Washington, DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Arjane Lekocaj, a native and citizen of 13 Albania, seeks review of an August 16, 2018 decision of the 14 BIA affirming an August 16, 2017 decision of an Immigration 15 Judge (“IJ”) denying Lekocaj’s application for asylum, 16 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 17 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Lekocaj, No. A 206 189 345 18 (B.I.A. Aug. 16, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 189 345 (Immig. Ct. 19 N.Y. City Aug. 16, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity 20 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 21 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. 22 See Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 23 2005). The standards of review are well established. See 8 24 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67, 25 76 (2d Cir. 2018); Y.C. v. Holder, 741 F.3d 324, 332 (2d Cir. 26 2013). 2 1 Agency’s Jurisdiction 2 Relying on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), 3 Lekocaj first argues that her notice to appear (“NTA”) was 4 insufficient to confer jurisdiction because it did not 5 include a hearing date or time. This argument is ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals