Lall v. Sessions

16‐2828‐ag Lall v. Sessions BIA Segal, IJ A099 593 412 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 the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City 3 of New York, on the 5th day of October, two thousand seventeen. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 8 Circuit Judges, 9 JOHN F. KEENAN,* 10 District Judge. 11 _____________________________________ 12 ROKMANIE LALL, 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. 16‐2828 16 17 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 18 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 Respondent. 20 _____________________________________ * Judge John F. Keenan, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 2 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua Bardavid, New York, NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 5 Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, 6 Assistant Director; Jonathan Robbins, 7 Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of 8 Immigration Litigation, United States 9 Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 10 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of the 12 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 13 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 14 Petitioner Rokmanie Lall, a native and citizen of Guyana, seeks review of an 15 August 1, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming the August 27, 2015, decision of an 16 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lall’s applications for adjustment of status and waiver 17 of inadmissibility and ordering her removed. In re Rokmanie Lall, No. A099 593 412 18 (B.I.A. Aug. 1, 2016), aff’g No. A099 593 412 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Aug. 27, 2015). We 19 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this 20 case, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to deny the petition. 21 We review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. 22 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 23 271 (2d Cir. 2005). 24 The only issue before us is Lall’s claim that the IJ violated her Fifth Amendment 2 1 due process rights by prejudging her credibility related to her application to adjust her 2 status to lawful permanent resident (“LPR”). We review constitutional claims de novo. 3 See Luna v. ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals