17-796 Desince v. Sessions BIA Renner, IJ A030 675 079 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 10th day of July, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 YANICK DESINCE, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-796 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Michael L. Walker, Brooklyn, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Derek C. Julius, 27 Assistant Director; Enitan O. 28 Otunla, Trial Attorney, Office of 29 Immigration Litigation, United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Yanick Desince, a native and citizen of Haiti, 9 seeks review of a February 22, 2017, decision of the BIA 10 affirming an October 12, 2016, decision of an Immigration 11 Judge (“IJ”) denying Desince’s application for withholding of 12 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture 13 (“CAT”). In re Yanick Desince, No. A 030 675 079 (B.I.A. Feb. 14 22, 2017), aff’g No. A 030 675 079 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 15 12, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 18 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 19 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 20 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). Desince’s aggravated felony 21 conviction limits our review to constitutional claims and 22 questions of law. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); Ortiz- 2 1 Franco v. Holder, 782 F.3d 81, 86 (2d Cir. 2015). 2 Withholding of Removal 3 To qualify for withholding of removal, Desince was 4 required to show that she would more likely than not be 5 persecuted. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 6 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987) (“The ‘would be threatened’ language 7 . . . requires the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals