19-2080 Nunez v. Garland BIA Mulligan, IJ A042 601 966 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 24th day of March, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, REENA RAGGI, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JOSE DE JESUS NUNEZ, Petitioner, v. 19-2080 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. 1 _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Mary S. Harper, Esq., Andrea A. Sáenz, Esq., Brooklyn Defender Services, Brooklyn, NY. 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Susan Bennett Green, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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 Jose de Jesus Nunez, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of a June 19, 2019 decision of the BIA vacating a January 16, 2019 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granting Nunez’s application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jose De Jesus Nunez, No. A 042 601 966 (B.I.A. June 19, 2019), vacating No. A 042 601 966 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 16, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the decision of the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). “[T]he BIA may only review the IJ's factual findings to determine whether they are clearly 2 erroneous.” Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289, 296 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i), (iv)). In reviewing the BIA’s application of the “clear error” standard, “we must determine whether the BIA has provided sufficient justification for its conclusion that the IJ has committed clear error . . . [and] make sure that the BIA has not violated the prohibition against making its own findings of fact.” Wu Lin v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 2016). An applicant for CAT relief has the burden to show that he …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals