17-2934 Butt v. Barr BIA Verrillo, IJ A089 347 090 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 3rd day of June, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MOHAMMAD BALAL BUTT, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-2934 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Amy Nussbaum Gell, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 27 Assistant Director; Kristen A. 28 Giuffreda, Trial Attorney, Office 29 of Immigration Litigation, United 30 States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 32 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 DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 5 Petitioner Mohammad Balal Butt, a native and citizen of 6 Pakistan, seeks review of an August 23, 2017, decision of the 7 BIA affirming a September 30, 2016, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying cancellation of removal, asylum, 9 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 10 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mohammad Balal Butt, No. A089 11 347 090 (B.I.A. Aug. 23, 2017), aff’g No. A089 347 090 (Immig. 12 Ct. Hartford Sept. 30, 2016). We assume the parties’ 13 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 14 in this case. 15 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions 16 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 17 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 18 applicable standards of review are well established. See 19 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 20 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 21 Cancellation of Removal 22 Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of 23 cancellation of removal is limited to colorable 2 1 constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 3 35, 39-40 (2d Cir. 2008) (exceptional and extremely unusual 4 hardship determinations by the BIA ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals