Auguste v. Garland

19-3603 Auguste v. Garland BIA A079 709 883 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 January, two thousand twenty-three. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, MYRNA PÉREZ, Circuit Judges. _______________________________________ JEAN RENE AUGUSTE JUNIOR, a.k.a. JEAN RENE AUGUSTE, JR., Petitioner, v. No. 19-3603 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. * _______________________________________ * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official case caption as set forth above. For Petitioner: ALEXANDRA PERLOFF-GILES, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY (Andrea Sáenz, Meghan McCarthy, Brooklyn Defender Services, Brooklyn, NY; Mylan Denerstein, Doriel Jacov, Steven Spriggs, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY, on the brief). For Respondent: MATTHEW A. SPURLOCK, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation (Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, on the brief), United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of a petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Jean Rene Auguste Junior, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the BIA’s decision reversing an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granting him relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jean Rene Auguste Junior, No. A079 709 883 (B.I.A. Oct. 25, 2019), rev’g No. A079 709 883 2 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Dec. 21, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal. When the BIA reverses an IJ’s grant of relief, we treat the BIA’s decision as the final agency determination. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s findings of fact for substantial evidence and conclusions of law de novo. See Manning v. Barr, 954 F.3d 477, 484 (2d Cir. 2020); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”). An applicant for relief under CAT has the burden to show that he would “more likely than not” be tortured in the proposed country of removal. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17, …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals