Martin v. Sessions

15-3840 Martin v. Sessions BIA Segal, IJ A079 252 661 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. 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 5th day of February, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ FABIAN R. MARTIN, AKA FABIAN RODRIGO MARTIN-BELTRAN, Petitioner, v. 15-3840 NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Samuel N. Iroegbu, Albany, N.Y. FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director; Linda Y. Cheng, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 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 DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Petitioner Fabian Martin, a native and citizen of Colombia, seeks review of the BIA’s affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Fabian R. Martin, No. A079 252 661 (B.I.A. Oct. 28, 2015), aff’g No. A079 252 661 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Mar. 12, 2014). Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA, see Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005), applying well-established standards of review, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). In so doing, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to deny the petition in part and to dismiss the petition in part. I. Asylum We dismiss Martin’s petition as it relates to the agency’s pretermission of his asylum application as untimely. 2 An asylum application must be filed within one year of an applicant’s arrival in the United States, absent changed or extraordinary circumstances. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D). Although we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s pretermission of asylum on timeliness grounds, we retain jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). In order to ascertain whether a petitioner raises such a constitutional challenge or question of law, we must ...

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