17-3306 Ramage v. Barr BIA Segal, IJ A094 380 979 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 13th day of December, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 ROBERT D. SACK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 EVERARD JOE RAMAGE, AKA EVERAND 14 RAMAGE, AKA EVERAD RAMAGE, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-3306 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua Bardavid, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 27 General; Cindy S. Ferrier, 28 Assistant Director; Sunah Lee, 29 Trial Attorney, Office of 30 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 Everard Joe Ramage, a native and citizen of 6 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, seeks review of a September 7 15, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a December 29, 2016, 8 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ramage’s 9 application for withholding of removal and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Everard Joe 11 Ramage, No. A 094 380 979 (B.I.A. Sept. 15, 2017), aff’g No. 12 A 094 380 979 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 29, 2016). We 13 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 14 procedural history. 15 Under the circumstances, we have considered both the IJ’s 16 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” 17 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 18 Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well 19 established. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. 20 Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 21 Absent past persecution, an alien may establish 22 eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT relief by 2 1 demonstrating a likelihood of future persecution or torture. 2 See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2), (c)(2). Persecution may 3 “encompass[] a variety of forms of adverse treatment, 4 including non-life-threatening violence and physical abuse,” 5 but ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals