18-2021 Barrera Pacheco v. Barr BIA Segal, IJ A 205 308 418 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 “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 17th day of November, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNY CHIN, 8 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ROMAN BARRERA PACHECO, 14 AKA ROMAN BARRERA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-2021 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, Esq., Youman, 25 Madeo & Fasano, LLP, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; Derek 1 C. Julius, Assistant Director; 2 Bernard A. Joseph, Senior 3 Litigation Counsel, Office of 4 Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Roman Barrera Pacheco, a native and citizen 12 of Mexico, seeks review of a June 13, 2018, decision of the 13 BIA affirming an August 30, 2017, decision of an 14 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for 15 withholding of removal. In re Roman Barrera Pacheco, No. 16 A205 308 418 (B.I.A. Jun. 13, 2018), aff’g No. A 205 308 418 17 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 30, 2017). We assume the 18 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 19 procedural history. 20 Barrera Pacheco has not challenged the denial of asylum 21 as untimely, which was dispositive of that form of relief, 22 or the denial of relief under the Convention Against 23 Torture. See Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d 24 Cir. 1998) (“Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs 2 1 are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on 2 appeal.”). Accordingly, we address only the agency’s 3 denial of withholding of removal. We have reviewed both 4 the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 5 completeness.” Wangchuck v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 6 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards 7 of review are ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals