16-3893 Montero v. Barr BIA Rohan, IJ A012 340 992 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 20th day of December, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, REENA RAGGI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ PEDRO JOSE MONTERO, Petitioner, v. No. 16-3893 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Mark S. Davies, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, District of Columbia; Daniel A. Rubens, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, New York. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director; Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, District of Columbia. 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 Pedro Jose Montero, a native and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of the BIA’s affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of (1) his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and (2) his motion to remand.1 In re Pedro Jose Montero, No. A012 340 992 (B.I.A. Oct. 28, 2016), aff’g No. A012 340 992 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 8, 2015). 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). Because Montero’s removal order is based on an aggravated felony 1 Montero also preserves for future review arguments that Ortiz-Franco v. Holder, 782 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2015), and Marin-Marin v. Sessions, 852 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2017), were wrongly decided, while recognizing that this panel is bound by those decisions. See Gelman v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 495, 499 (2d Cir. 2004). 2 conviction, our review is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); Ortiz-Franco v. Holder, 782 F.3d 81, 86 (2d Cir. 2015); Durant v. U.S. INS, 393 F.3d 113, 115 (2d Cir. 2004) (applying § 1252(a)(2)(C) to agency’s denial of motion to reopen). We review constitutional claims and questions of law de novo. See Pierre v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2007). In so doing, we assume ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals