16-1319 Jagdesh v. Sessions BIA Hom, IJ A098 422 127 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 20th day of July, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SAVITRIE JAGDESH, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-1319 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Savitrie Jagdesh, pro se, South 24 Ozone Park, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Anthony C. 28 Payne, Assistant Director; Jessica 29 D. Strokus, Trial Attorney, Office 1 of Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Savitrie Jagdesh, a native and citizen of 10 Guyana, seeks review of a March 31, 2016, decision of the BIA 11 affirming a May 21, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge 12 (“IJ”) denying Jagdesh’s application for withholding of 13 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture 14 (“CAT”). In re Savitrie Jagdesh, No. A 098 422 127 (B.I.A. 15 Mar. 31, 2016), aff’g No. A 098 422 127 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 16 May 21, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 18 We have reviewed the decisions of both the BIA and the 19 IJ “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 20 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The 21 applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 22 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 23 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Although Jagdesh’s counsel before the 2 1 agency failed to exhaust any relevant arguments on appeal to 2 the BIA, given Jagdesh’s current pro se status, we have 3 reviewed the record and the agency’s rulings and find no error 4 in the agency’s conclusion that Jagdesh failed to meet her 5 burden of proof. 6 To qualify for ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals