18-3099 Charles v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A074 917 669 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 17th day of March, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, REENA RAGGI, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ LEO FELIX CHARLES, Petitioner, v. 18-3099 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. 1 _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Dalia H. Fuleihan, Immigrant Justice Corps Fellow, New Haven Legal Assistance Association, New Haven, CT. 1The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director; Ilana J. Snyder, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Leo Felix Charles, a native and citizen of Haiti, seeks review of a decision of the BIA affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) following the reopening of proceedings and termination of a prior grant of CAT relief. See In re Leo Felix Charles, No. A 074 917 669 (B.I.A. Oct. 3, 2018), aff’g No. A 074 917 669 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Feb. 22, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). An applicant for CAT deferral must “establish that it is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured 2 if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.17(a). “Torture is defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person . . . by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). We review the denial of CAT relief “under the deferential substantial-evidence standard.” Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692–93 (2020). The agency concluded that Charles’s fear of torture …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals