16-4146 Konoplyankin v. Barr BIA Reid, IJ A206 471 637 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 18th day of September, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, RICHARD C. WESLEY, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ KIRILL NIKOLAYEVICH KONOPLYANKIN, Petitioner, v. 16-4146 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Alexander Almonte, Almonte Law Firm, P.C., Brooklyn, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director; James A. Hurley, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, 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 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Petitioner Kirill Nikolayevich Konoplyankin, a native of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and a citizen of Kazakhstan, seeks review of a November 16, 2016, decision of the BIA that affirmed a November 23, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denied his motion to remand. In re Kirill Nikolayevich Konoplyankin, No. A206 471 637 (B.I.A. Nov. 16, 2016), aff’g No. A206 471 637 (Immig. Ct. Batavia Nov. 23, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009); Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 421 F.3d 149, 156 (2d Cir. 2005). 2 As an initial matter, Konoplyankin does not challenge the agency’s pretermission of his asylum application as untimely or the denial of CAT relief on the merits and thus we do not consider those claims. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (noting that petitioner abandons issues not raised in his briefs). However, as discussed below, we grant the petition and remand because the agency ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals