Blake v. Garland

22-6338 Blake v. Garland BIA Reid, IJ A086 979 655 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 5th day of June, two thousand twenty- 4 three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ANTHONY ROHAN O’NEIL BLAKE, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 22-6338 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas H. Nooter, Freeman, Nooter & 24 Ginsberg, New York, NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 2 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant 3 Director; Jennifer A. Singer, Trial Attorney, 4 Office of Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 8 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 9 AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. 10 Petitioner Anthony Rohan O’Neil Blake, a native and citizen of Jamaica, 11 seeks review of a July 1, 2022 decision of the BIA affirming a January 20, 2022 12 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for deferral of 13 removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Anthony Rohan 14 O’Neil Blake, No. A 086 979 655 (B.I.A. Jul. 1, 2022), aff’g No. A 086 979 655 15 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 20, 2022). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16 underlying facts and procedural history. 17 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 18 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 19 2006). “[W]e apply the substantial evidence standard to questions of fact raised 20 in [Blake’s] . . . CAT challenge[ ], and de novo review to all questions of law, 21 including the application of law to facts.” Quintanilla-Mejia v. Garland, 3 F.4th 2 1 569, 583 (2d Cir. 2021); see also Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020). 1 2 Under the substantial evidence standard, “we must uphold agency factfinding 3 ‘unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 4 contrary.’” Quintanilla-Mejia, 3 F.4th at 583 …

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