McCarthy v. Sessions

15-2390(L),16-1817(Con) McCarthy v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A089 637 634 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 20th day of April, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 BRYAN MCCARTHY, 14 Petitioner, 15 15-2390(L), 16 v. 16-1817(Con) 17 NAC 18 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Millicent Y. Clarke, Freeport, 25 NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 28 Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 1 Holly M. Smith, Senior Litigation 2 Counsel; John B. Holt, Trial 3 Attorney, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review 11 are DENIED. 12 Petitioner Bryan McCarthy, a native and citizen of 13 Jamaica, seeks review of (1) a May 20, 2016, decision of the 14 BIA denying his motion to reopen, In re Bryan McCarthy, No. 15 A089 637 634 (B.I.A. May 20, 2016), and (2) a June 30, 2015, 16 decision of the BIA affirming an August 11, 2014, decision of 17 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for 18 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 19 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), In re Bryan McCarthy, No. 20 A089 637 634 (B.I.A. June 30, 2015), aff’g No. A089 637 634 21 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Aug. 11, 2014). We assume the parties’ 22 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 23 in this case. 2 1 A. Docket 15-2390(L), Order of Removal 2 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 3 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 4 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Because McCarthy does not challenge 5 the agency’s removability finding or the agency’s 6 determination that he is statutorily barred from asylum and 7 withholding of removal for having been convicted of an 8 aggravated felony and particularly serious crime, the only 9 issue before us in this petition ...

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