20-1667 Ledesma v. Garland 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 3 City of New York, on the 6th day of April, two thousand twenty-one. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 DENNY CHIN, 7 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 8 MICHAEL H. PARK, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 JONATHAN JOSE LOGAN LEDESMA, 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. No. 20-1667 16 NAC 17 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES 18 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 Respondent. * 20 _____________________________________ * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as respondent. 1 FOR PETITIONER: Jonathan Jose Logan Ledesma, pro se, 2 Washington, MS. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Janice K. Redfern, Senior Litigation Counsel; 5 William C. Minick, Office of Immigration 6 Litigation, United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, DC. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these motions for a stay of removal, 10 leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and appointment of counsel, it is hereby 11 ORDERED that the motions for IFP status and appointment of counsel are 12 GRANTED and the motion for a stay of removal is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Jonathan Jose Logan Ledesma, a native and citizen of the 14 Philippines, is currently seeking review of a May 1, 2020 decision of an 15 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) concurring with an asylum officer’s negative reasonable 16 fear determination. In re Jonathan Jose Logan Ledesma, No. A 201 495 870 (Immigr. 17 Ct. N.Y.C. May 1, 2020). Before us are only Ledesma’s motions requesting that 18 he be granted a stay of removal and IFP status, and appointed counsel to assist in 19 his appeal. Thus, we do not decide whether the IJ in fact erred in concurring with 20 the asylum officer’s negative reasonable fear determination. 2 1 Ledesma’s Expedited Removal Proceedings 2 Ledesma entered the United States in 1995 on a visa and overstayed. In 3 2016, he was convicted of interstate travel in aid of racketeering under 18 U.S.C. 4 § 1952(a)(3) in connection with a methamphetamine distribution scheme, which 5 the immigration laws define as an “aggravated felony.” See 8 U.S.C. 6 § 1101(a)(43)(B) (defining that term to encompass “illicit trafficking in a controlled 7 substance”); see also Deptula v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 642 F. App’x 184, 185, 188 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals