18-2845 Ramsundar v. Barr BIA A074 974 786 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 17th day of August, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 GUIDO CALABRESI, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SHANTAL RAMSUNDAR, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-2845 17 NAC 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Daniel E. Jackson, Erie County 24 Bar Association, Volunteer Lawyers 25 Project, Inc., Batavia, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Keith I. 29 McManus, Assistant Director; John 30 F. Stanton, Trial Attorney, Office 31 of Immigration Litigation, United 32 States Department of Justice, 33 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 GRANTED. 5 Petitioner Shantal Ramsundar, a native and citizen of 6 Trinidad and Tobago, seeks review of a September 18, 2018, 7 decision of the BIA denying her motion to reopen. In re 8 Shantal Ramsundar, No. A 074 974 786 (B.I.A. Sep. 18, 2018). 9 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 10 and procedural history. 11 As an initial matter, because Ramsundar has timely 12 petitioned for review of the denial of a motion to reopen, 13 but not from the underlying decision, we have reviewed only 14 the denial of her motion to reopen. See Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. 15 Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 89–90 (2d Cir. 2001). Our 16 review would generally be limited to constitutional claims 17 and questions of law because Ramsundar was ordered removed 18 for aggravated felonies, see U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), but 19 it is not so limited here. Ramsundar requested reopening to 20 apply for relief from removal under the Convention Against 21 Torture (“CAT”). Accordingly, the jurisdictional limitation 22 does not apply because a CAT claim is distinct from an order 2 1 of removal. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692–93 2 (2020); Sharif v. Barr, No. 965 F.3d 612, 619 (8th Cir. 2020) 3 (noting ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals