17-4097(L) Carabal-Santos v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A200 689 439 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 15th day of May, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 REENA RAGGI, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SAMUEL CARABAL-SANTOS, AKA 14 SAMUEL CARVAGAL, AKA SAMUEL 15 SANTOS, 16 Petitioner, 17 17-4097(L), 18 v. 18-1358(Con) 19 NAC 20 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 21 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Robert C. Ross, West Haven, CT. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Carl McIntyre, 29 Assistant Director; Gregory A. 30 Pennington, Jr., Trial Attorney, 31 Office of Immigration Litigation, 32 United States Department of 33 Justice, Washington, DC. 34 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review 4 are DENIED. 5 Petitioner Samuel Carabal-Santos, a native and citizen 6 of Mexico, seeks review of the denials of (1) his application 7 for relief from removal under the Convention Against Torture 8 (“CAT”), see In re Samuel Carabal-Santos, No. A200 689 439 9 (B.I.A. Nov. 27, 2017), aff’g No. A200 689 439 (Immig. Ct. 10 Hartford June 8, 2017), and (2) his motion to reopen, see In 11 re Samuel Carabal-Santos, No. A200 689 439 (B.I.A. Apr. 6, 12 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 13 facts and procedural history in this case. 14 A. Order of Removal 15 The only issues before us in this petition are the 16 agency’s denial of deferral of removal under the CAT and its 17 denial of a continuance. Under the circumstances of this case, 18 we have reviewed both the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) and the 19 BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness,” Wangchuck v. 20 Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006), 21 examining factual findings for substantial evidence and 2 1 questions of law de novo, see Wei Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 2 23, 27 (2d Cir. 2018). 3 1. Deferral of Removal 4 An applicant seeking deferral of removal under the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals