Doe v. Sessions

15-2026 (L) Doe v. Sessions BIA Mulligan, IJ A047 137 723 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 27th day of September, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JOHN DOE, Petitioner, v. 15-2026(L), 16-58(Con) NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Nancy Morawetz, Supervising Attorney; Juliana Morgan-Trostle, Andrea Savdie, Allison Wilson, Rhiya Trivedi, Student Interns, Washington Square Legal Services, Inc., New York, New York. FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director; Jeremy M. Bylund, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review are DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. Petitioner John Doe, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of a June 18, 2015 decision of the BIA affirming a December 29, 2014 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Doe’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re John Doe, No. A047-137-723 (B.I.A. June 18, 2015), aff’g No. A047-137-723 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Dec. 29, 2014).1 Doe also seeks review of a December 9, 2015 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reconsider. In re John Doe, 1 We previously granted the petitioner’s motion to proceed in our court under a pseudonym. Citations to the agency’s decisions have been modified to reflect that pseudonym. 2 No. A047-137-723 (B.I.A. Dec. 9, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to deny in part and dismiss in part. Because the agency ordered Doe removed for having been convicted of an aggravated felony fraud offense (a fraud offense in which the loss to the victims exceeded $10,000, see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i)), our “appellate jurisdiction is limited to review of constitutional claims and questions of law.” Ortiz-Franco v. Holder, 782 F.3d 81, 86 (2d Cir. 2015); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D). 1. Aggravated Felony Determination Doe was ordered removed based on his ...

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