17-1484 Prenga v. Sessions BIA Straus, IJ A070 449 551 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 20th day of August, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 GJOVALIN PRENGA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1484 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Alan Michael Strauss, Franklin, 24 ME. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Leslie McKay, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Manuel 29 A. Palau, Trial Attorney, Office 30 of Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Gjovalin Prenga, a stateless native of 6 Albania, seeks review of an April 24, 2017, decision of the 7 BIA affirming a January 11, 2016, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) finding Prenga removable and denying his 9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Gjovalin 11 Prenga, No. A 070 449 551 (B.I.A. Apr. 24, 2017), aff’g No. A 12 070 449 551 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Jan. 11, 2016). We assume 13 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 14 procedural history in this case, which we reference only as 15 necessary to explain our decision to deny the petition. 16 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 17 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 18 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 19 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s factual 20 findings for substantial evidence and we review legal 21 questions, including the application of law to fact, de novo. 22 Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2010). 2 1 I. Removability 2 The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) provides 3 that “[a]ny alien who at any time knowingly has encouraged, 4 induced, assisted, abetted, or aided ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals