18-1083-ag K.O. v. Garland 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, held 2 at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New 3 York, on the 21st day of May, two thousand twenty-one. 4 5 PRESENT: RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 6 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 7 Circuit Judges, 8 RONNIE ABRAMS, 9 Judge. * 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 11 K.O., 12 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. 18-1083-ag 16 17 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES 18 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 20 Respondent. ∗∗ 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------ * Judge Ronnie Abrams, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. ∗∗ The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 1 FOR PETITIONER: BEATRICE C. FRANKLIN (Arun 2 Subramanian, on the brief), Susman 3 Godfrey LLP, New York, NY 4 5 FOR RESPONDENT: VIRGINIA L. GORDON, Trial Attorney 6 (Margot L. Carter, Senior Litigation 7 Counsel, on the brief), for Brian M. 8 Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 9 General, Civil Division, Office of 10 Immigration Litigation, United States 11 Department of Justice, Washington, DC 12 13 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 14 Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 15 AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. 16 Petitioner K.O., a citizen of Nigeria, seeks review of an April 6, 2018 17 decision of the BIA affirming an October 20, 2017 decision of an Immigration 18 Judge (IJ), which denied K.O.’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, 19 and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In re K.O., 20 No. A 209 449 517 (B.I.A. Apr. 6, 2018), aff’g No. A 209 449 517 (Immig. Ct. 21 Batavia Oct. 20, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 22 facts and procedural history, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our 23 decision to grant K.O.’s petition. 2 1 We review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. 2 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review are 3 well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 4 513 (2d Cir. 2009). K.O. principally asks us to review issues relating to his 5 competency during his hearing …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals