18-3052 Omolo v. Garland BIA Ruehle, IJ A206 471 505 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 12th day of April, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 FELIX OTIENO OMOLO, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 18-3052 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 1 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Frederick P. Korkosz, Albany, NY. 25 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Anthony C. 3 Payne, Assistant Director; Abigail 4 E. Leach, Trial Attorney, Office 5 of Immigration Litigation, United 6 States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 12 Petitioner Felix Otieno Omolo, a native and citizen of 13 Kenya, seeks review of a September 24, 2018 decision of the 14 BIA affirming a November 16, 2017 decision of an Immigration 15 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding 16 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 17 (“CAT”). In re Felix Otieno Omolo, No. A 206 471 505 (B.I.A. 18 Sept. 24, 2018), aff’g No. A 206 471 505 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo 19 Nov. 16, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 20 underlying facts and procedural history. 21 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by 22 the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 23 Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well 24 established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. 25 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 1 As an initial matter, our jurisdiction to review the 2 agency’s denial of Omolo’s asylum application as untimely 3 filed more than one year after his arrival in the United 4 States is limited to constitutional claims and questions of 5 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals