17-863 Bhai v. Whitaker BIA Hom, IJ A205 432 151/152/153/154/155 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 4th day of January, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SOMESH K. BHAI, SONU KUMARI, 14 ARYANN NLN, SHANN NLN, TANUSHREE 15 NLN, 16 Petitioners, 17 18 v. 17-863 19 NAC 20 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONERS: Anas J. Ahmed, Pannun The Firm, 26 P.C., Jackson Heights, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 29 Attorney General; Douglas E. 30 Ginsburg, Assistant Director; 31 Timothy Bo Stanton, Trial 32 Attorney, Office of Immigration 1 Litigation, United States 2 Department of Justice, Washington, 3 DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioners Somesh K. Bhai, Sonu Kumari, Aryann NLN, 10 Shann NLN, and Tanushree NLN, natives and citizens of India, 11 seek review of a March 20, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming 12 a September 17, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 13 denying Bhai’s application for asylum, withholding of 14 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 15 (“CAT”). In re Somesh K. Bhai, Sonu Kumari, Aryann NLN, 16 Shann NLN, and Tanushree NLN, Nos. A 205 432 17 151/152/153/154/155 (B.I.A. Mar. 20, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 18 432 151/152/153/154/155 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 17, 19 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 20 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 21 The only issue before us is the agency’s denial of 22 withholding of removal and CAT relief as to Bhai himself. 23 Although he applied for asylum and listed the other 24 petitioners as derivative beneficiaries for that relief, the 2 1 agency denied the asylum application as time barred. Bhai 2 has abandoned any challenge to that ruling and thus to that 3 form of relief by failing to challenge the time bar ruling in 4 his brief. See Yueqing ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals