19-1766 Mbendeke v. Garland BIA McCarthy, IJ A062 016 418 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 ASUMMARY 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, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 3 New York, on the 21st day of May, two thousand twenty-one. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 7 MICHAEL H. PARK, 8 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 Emily Mbendeke, FKA Landry Mbendeke, AKA 13 Landry Tongaoume Bampell, 14 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-1766-cv 18 19 Merrick B. Garland, United States Attorney General, 20 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: BRITT R. DEVANEY, Katten Muchin 25 Rosenman LLP, Chicago, IL (Peter G. 26 Wilson, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP; 27 Charles Roth, Tania Linares Garcia, 28 National Immigrant Justice Center, Chicago, 29 IL, on the brief). 30 1 FOR RESPONDENT: JENNIFER R. KHOURI (Tim Ramnitz, on the 2 Brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, for 3 Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 4 Attorney General, Civil Division, United 5 States Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 . 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration 10 Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the 11 petition for review is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Emily Mbendeke seeks review of a May 20, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming 13 a December 3, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Mbendeke’s application for 14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 15 Landry Mbendeke, No. A062 016 418 (B.I.A. May 20, 2019), aff’g No. A062 016 418 (Immig. Ct. 16 N.Y.C. Dec. 3, 2018). We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 17 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We 18 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 19 I. Particularly Serious Crime Bar 20 A person who has been convicted of a “particularly serious crime” is ineligible for asylum 21 or withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). Where, as here, 22 a crime is not per se particularly serious because it is not an aggravated felony, the agency 23 considers “(1) ‘the nature of the conviction,’ (2) ‘the circumstances and underlying facts of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals