20-2331 Alexis v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A200 444 973 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 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 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 7th day of April, two thousand twenty- 4 three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 GARYL ALEXIS, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-2331 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 1 FOR PETITIONER: Diana R. Blank, New Haven Legal Assistance 2 Association, New Haven, CT. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney 5 General; Anthony C. Payne, Assistant 6 Director; Neelam Ihsanullah, Trial Attorney, 7 Office of Immigration Litigation, United 8 States Department of Justice, Washington, 9 DC. 10 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 12 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 13 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 14 Petitioner Garyl Alexis, a native and citizen of Haiti, seeks review of a June 15 24, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming an October 10, 2019, decision of an 16 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for deferral of removal under the 17 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Garyl Alexis, No. A200 444 973 (B.I.A. 18 June 24, 2020), aff’g No. A200 444 973 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Oct. 10, 2019). We 19 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 21 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 22 2006). We review questions of law de novo and factual findings for substantial 23 evidence. Quintanilla-Mejia v. Garland, 3 F.4th 569, 583 (2d Cir. 2021). “[T]he 2 1 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator 2 would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 3 “[S]ubstantial evidence review does not contemplate any judicial reweighing of 4 evidence. Rather it requires us to ask only whether record evidence compelled a 5 . . . finding different from that reached by the agency.” Quintanilla-Mejia, 3 F.4th 6 at 593–94. 7 A CAT applicant has the burden to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals