20-610 Perez-Rojas v. Garland BIA Ruehle, IJ A205 702 340 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 for the Second 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 14th day of March, two thousand 4 twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 TIBURCIO PEREZ-ROJAS, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 20-610 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 1 2 FOR PETITIONER: Jose Perez, Esq., Syracuse, NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant 5 Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, 6 Assistant Director; Sunah Lee, Trial Attorney, 7 Office of Immigration Litigation, United 8 States Department of Justice, Washington, 9 DC. 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 11 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 12 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Tiburcio Perez-Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review 14 of a January 15, 2020 decision of the BIA affirming an April 12, 2018 decision of an 15 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 16 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Tiburcio Perez-Rojas, No. A 17 205 702 340 (B.I.A. Jan. 15, 2020), aff’g No. A 205 702 340 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Apr. 18 12, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 19 procedural history. 20 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan 21 Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). As an initial matter, Perez- 22 Rojas’s claim that his asylum application was timely is unexhausted because he 2 1 failed to challenge the IJ’s finding that his application was time-barred before the 2 BIA. See Karaj v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 113, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006) (holding that the 3 Court lacked jurisdiction to consider claims that were not exhausted on appeal to 4 the BIA). Accordingly, we review only the denial of withholding of removal and 5 CAT relief. As to those remaining claims, we review questions of law de novo, 6 see Paloka v. Holder, 762 F.3d 191, 195 (2d Cir. 2014), and we review findings of fact …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals