16-3869 Niang v. Barr BIA Hom, IJ A073 048 664 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 11th day of July, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ FODE NIANG, Petitioner, v. 16-3869 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Edward J. Cuccia, Cuccia & Campise, PLLC, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Alison Marie Igoe, Daniel I. Smulow, Senior Counsel for National Security, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 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 Fode Niang, a native and citizen of Senegal, seeks review of an October 18, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a November 18, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying both Niang’s application for asylum and withholding of removal and his request for administrative closure based on his material support for a terrorist organization. In re Fode Niang, No. A 073 048 664 (B.I.A. Oct. 18, 2016), aff’g No. A073 048 664 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Nov. 18, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review 2 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). An alien who has engaged in a terrorist activity is statutorily ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(v), 1255(a), 1231(b)(3)(B)(iv). “Terrorist activity” includes, among other things: any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves . . . [t]he use of any . . . firearm . . . (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals