17-994-ag Hamer v. Sessions BIA Videla, IJ A036 358 692 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 25th day of May, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ORRIN S. HAMER, AKA ORIN HAMER, AKA ORIN S. HAMER, Petitioner, v. 17-994-ag JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ For Petitioner: CRAIG RELLES, Law Office of Craig Relles, White Plains, New York. For Respondent: KATHARINE E. CLARK (Nancy K. Canter, on the brief), for Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Washington, District of Columbia. Petition for review of a March 9, 2017 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing Petitioner’s appeal of a December 11, 2015 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Petitioner’s motion to terminate removal proceedings and ordering his removal. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a BIA decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Orrin S. Hamer, a native and citizen of Guyana, seeks review of a March 9, 2017 decision of the BIA dismissing Hamer’s appeal of a December 11, 2015 decision of an IJ denying Hamer’s motion to terminate removal proceedings and ordering his removal. In re Orrin S. Hamer, No. A 036 358 692 (B.I.A. Mar. 9, 2017), aff’g No. A 036 358 692 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 11, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. We have reviewed the decisions of both the IJ and BIA “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review de novo Hamer’s legal challenge to the agency’s denial of his motion to terminate removal proceedings. See Perriello v. Napolitano, 579 F.3d 135, 138 (2d Cir. 2009). Hamer’s petition is denied because his arguments are foreclosed by our decision in Perriello. Hamer relies on 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(f), which provides: An immigration judge may terminate removal proceedings to permit the alien to proceed to a final hearing on a pending application or petition for naturalization when the alien ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals