18-912 Ramirez-Galvez v. Barr BIA Verrillo, IJ A208 699 126 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 17th day of July, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ GELSER ANTONIO RAMIREZ-GALVEZ, Petitioner, v. 18-912 NAC WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Robert C. Ross, West Haven, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director; Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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 Ramirez-Galvez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a March 6, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming an April 18, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ramirez-Galvez’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. In re Ramirez Galvez, No. A 208 699 126 (B.I.A. Mar. 6, 2018), aff’g No. A 208 699 126 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Apr. 18, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The standards of review are well-established. We review the agency’s factual findings to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence; we review questions of law and application of law to fact de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 As an initial matter, Ramirez-Galvez’s argument that the agency lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because his notice to appear did not include a hearing date or time is foreclosed by Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 922 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2019). There we “conclude[d] that an NTA that omits information regarding the time and date of the initial removal hearing is nevertheless adequate to vest jurisdiction in the Immigration Court, at least so long as a notice of hearing specifying the information is later sent to the alien.” Id. at 112. There is no question ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals