18-1416 Murrillo v. Barr 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 31st day of March, two thousand twenty. Present: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges, _____________________________________ ARTHUR DAREN MARLON MURRILLO, AKA ARTHUR MURRILLO, AKA EWARTH SMITH, AKA EWORTH SMITH, AKA MICHAEL GREGG BAIN, AKA BRIAN BROWN, Petitioner, v. 18-1416 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ For Petitioner: ESTELLE M. MCKEE, Asylum and Convention Against Torture Appellate Clinic, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY. For Plaintiff-Appellee: ZOE J. HELLER, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of 1 Justice (Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Derek C. Julius, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation on the brief), Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Arthur Daren Marlon Murrillo, a native and citizen of Belize, seeks review of an April 13, 2018, decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an October 30, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Arthur Daren Marlon Murrillo, No. A088 443 725 (B.I.A. Apr. 13, 2018), aff’g No. A088 443 725 (Immig. Ct. Fishkill Oct. 30, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. We have reviewed the decision of the IJ as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Our jurisdiction is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law because Murrillo is removable for having been convicted of a firearm offense. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); Ortiz-Franco v. Holder, 782 F.3d 81, 91 (2d Cir. 2015). Murrillo’s argument that the agency applied an incorrect legal standard in denying protection under the CAT raises a question of law over which we have jurisdiction. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir. 2006). We consider that argument de novo. See Pierre v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2007). To be eligible for CAT relief, an applicant is required to show that he would more likely than not be ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals