16-2640 Manley v. Barr BIA Sagerman, IJ A206 471 587 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 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 15th day of July, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 DUJON LUTHER MANLEY, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-2640 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Ishan K. Bhabha, Jenner and Block 24 LLP, Washington, DC. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Linda S. 28 Wernery, Assistant Director; 29 Gregory M. Kelch, Trial Attorney, 30 Office of Immigration Litigation, 1 United States Department of 2 Justice, Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Dujon Luther Manley, a native and citizen of 9 Jamaica, seeks review of a July 18, 2016, decision of the BIA 10 affirming the January 22, 2016, decision of an Immigration 11 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for withholding of 12 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture 13 (“CAT”). In re Dujon Luther Manley, No. A206 471 587 (B.I.A. 14 July 18, 2016), aff’g No. A206 471 587 (Immig. Ct. Napanoch 15 Jan. 22, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 16 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 17 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 18 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 19 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). Our 20 jurisdiction is limited to constitutional claims and 21 questions of law given that Manley is removable by reason of 22 having been convicted of a controlled substance offense and 23 an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); see 24 also Ortiz-Franco v. Holder, 782 F.3d 81, 91 (2d Cir. 2015). 2 1 We review such claims de novo. Pierre v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 2 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2007). 3 We find no error in the BIA’s determination that Manley 4 waived on appeal ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals