17-1100 Figueroa v. Barr BIA Mulligan, IJ A074 843 223 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 16th day of December, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, SUSAN L. CARNEY, MICHAEL H. PARK, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ CARLOS H. FIGUEROA, Petitioner, v. 17-1100 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: THOMAS E. MOSELEY, Law Offices of Thomas E. Moseley, Newark, NJ. FOR RESPONDENT: JONATHAN ROBBINS, Attorney (Joseph H, Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director; D. Nicholas Harling, Trial Attorney, on the brief) for the Office of Immigration Litigation, United States 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 Carlos H. Figueroa, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of a March 21, 2017 decision of the BIA reversing a September 29, 2016 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granting Figueroa’s application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Carlos H. Figueroa, No. A 074 843 223 (B.I.A. Mar. 21, 2017), aff’g in part and rev’g in part No. A 074 843 223 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 29, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Because Figueroa was ordered removed for an aggravated felony and a controlled substance offense, our jurisdiction is limited to “constitutional claims or questions of law,” which we review de novo. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), (B); Pierre v. 2 Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). Figueroa raises a question of law: whether the BIA applied the wrong legal standard in finding clear error in the IJ’s factual finding that Figueroa would likely suffer enhanced mistreatment in detention that would amount to torture. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir. 2006) (finding legal error arises when decision is “based on a legally erroneous standard”). CAT relief is mandatory if the applicant shows that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals