21-6389 Lyttle 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 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 22nd day of March, two thousand twenty-three. PRESENT: Rosemary S. Pooler, Richard C. Wesley, Steven J. Menashi, Circuit Judges. ____________________________________________ OSSAIN OMAR LYTTLE, Petitioner, v. No. 21-6389 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________________________________ For Petitioner: Joshua E. Bardavid, New York, NY. For Respondent: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director; Dana M. Camilleri, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, 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 DENIED. Petitioner Ossain Omar Lyttle, a citizen of Jamaica, seeks review of a June 17, 2021, decision of the BIA affirming a July 23, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering him removed as an alien present without admission or parole and denying his application for adjustment of status and his motion for a continuance. In re Ossain Omar Lyttle, No. A088 437 561 (B.I.A. June 17, 2021), aff’g No. A088 437 561 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 23, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). “Congress has specified that ‘the administrative findings of fact are 2 conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Singh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Thus, “we review the agency’s decision for substantial evidence and must defer to the factfinder’s findings based on such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. at 113 (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]e will uphold the BIA’s decision unless the petitioner demonstrates that the record evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find him eligible for relief. By contrast, we review legal conclusions de novo.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We deny the petition for review. First, we see no error in the agency’s determination that Lyttle …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals