17-3630 Ponnampalam v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A099 759 295 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 1st day of May, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ BALASUBRAMANIYA PONNAMPALAM, Petitioner, v. 17-3630 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Visuvanathan Rudrakumaran, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Briena L. Strippoli, Senior Litigation Counsel (Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Kiley Kane, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief), 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 Balasubramaniya Ponnampalam, a native and citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks review of an October 6, 2017 decision of the BIA affirming a September 9, 2016 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Balasubramaniya Ponnampalam, No. A099 759 295 (B.I.A. Oct. 6, 2017), aff’g No. A099 759 295 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 9, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Although we have the “inherent authority . . . to dismiss an appeal or petition for review as frivolous when the appeal or petition presents no arguably meritorious issue for our consideration,” Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam), summary denial is “a rare exception to the completion of the appeal process . . . [and] is available only if an appeal is truly frivolous,” United States v. Davis, 2 598 F.3d 10, 13 (2d Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). Given conditions in Sri Lanka, Ponnampalam’s petition is not frivolous and we deny the Government’s motion for summary denial. However, because Ponnampalam has filed a brief and responded to the Government’s motion for summary denial and does not have a meritorious challenge to the agency’s decisions, we construe the Government’s motion as its brief and deny Ponnampalam’s petition on the merits. In this case, we have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals