16-2625 Guediara v. Sessions BIA Sichel, IJ A089 193 531 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 8th day of November, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MOUSSA GUEDIARA, AKA YAYA CAMARA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-2625 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Jessica A. 27 Dawgert, Senior Litigation Counsel; 28 Yanal H. Yousef, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 United States Department of Justice, 31 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Moussa Guediara, a native and citizen of Côte 6 d’Ivoire, seeks review of a June 30, 2016, decision of the BIA 7 affirming a May 12, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge 8 (“IJ”) denying Guediara’s application for asylum, withholding 9 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Moussa Guediara, No. A089 193 531 (B.I.A. June 11 30, 2016), aff’g No. A089 193 531 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 12, 12 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 13 facts and procedural history in this case. 14 When the BIA summarily affirms the IJ’s decision, we review 15 the IJ’s decision, as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus the 16 findings regarding timeliness and changed circumstances that 17 the BIA did not reach. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of 18 Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Petitioner raises 19 two issues on appeal: (1) whether the agency erred in relying 20 on fingerprint evidence from the Department of Homeland 21 Security (“DHS”); and (2) whether substantial evidence supports 22 the agency’s determination that Guediara was not credible. 2 1 I. Admission of Fingerprint Evidence 2 “The due process test for admissibility of evidence in a 3 deportation hearing is whether ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals