Brown v. Sessions

16-612 Brown v. Sessions BIA Hom, IJ A037 335 000 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 20th day of April, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 HYACINTH ELIZABETH BROWN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-612 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Melissa M. Desvarieux, Dobroshi 24 & Desvarieux, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting 27 Assistant Attorney General; 28 Melissa Neiman-Kelting, 29 Assistant Director; Anthony J. 30 Messuri, Trial Attorney, Office 31 of Immigration Litigation, 32 United States Department of 33 Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Hyacinth Elizabeth Brown, a native and 6 citizen of Jamaica, seeks review of a February 8, 2016, 7 decision of the BIA affirming an April 14, 2014, decision 8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Brown’s application 9 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Hyacinth 11 Elizabeth Brown, No. A037 335 000 (B.I.A. Feb. 8, 2016), 12 aff’g No. A037 335 000 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City April 14, 13 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 14 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 16 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., excluding the 17 pretermission of the asylum application as untimely, which 18 the BIA did not reach. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 19 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable 20 standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. 21 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d 22 Cir. 2009). 23 Our jurisdiction to review a final order of removal 2 1 against an alien, such as Brown, who is removable for a 2 controlled substance offense or a crime involving moral 3 turpitude, ...

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