20-6 Lagos Rivera v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A206 013 573 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 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 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 6th day of July, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 JON O. NEWMAN, 10 GERARD E. LYNCH, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 NILSON LAGOS RIVERA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-6 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: H.P. Sean Dweck, The Dweck Law 25 Firm, LLP, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting 28 Assistant Attorney General; 1 Shelley R. Goad, Assistant 2 Director; Kristen A. Giuffreda, 3 Trial Attorney, Office of 4 Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DISMISSED. 11 Petitioner Nilson Lagos Rivera, a native and citizen of 12 Honduras, seeks review of a December 3, 2019, decision of the 13 BIA affirming a July 1, 2019, decision of an Immigration Judge 14 (“IJ”) denying Lagos Rivera’s application for withholding of 15 removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture 16 (“CAT”) following his reentry without permission and 17 reinstatement of his 2014 removal order. In re Nilson Lagos 18 Rivera, No. A206 013 573 (B.I.A. Dec. 3, 2019), aff’g No. 19 A206 013 573 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 1, 2019). We assume 20 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 21 procedural history. 22 Although neither Lagos Rivera nor the Government 23 challenges our jurisdiction, “federal courts have an 24 independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the 2 1 scope of their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise 2 and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties either 3 overlook or elect not to press.” Bhaktibhai-Patel v. 4 Garland, 32 F.4th 180, 187 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting Henderson 5 ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011)). 6 Our jurisdiction is limited to review of petitions for review 7 filed within 30 days of a “final order of removal.” …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals