21-6475 Rauda v. Garland BIA Driscoll, IJ A041 713 664 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 2nd day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 OSCAR FRANCISCO RAUDA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. No. 21-6475 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 FOR PETITIONER: Oscar Francisco Rauda, Pro Se. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 4 Attorney General, Margaret Kuehne 5 Taylor, Senior Litigation Counsel, 6 and Rodolfo D. Saenz, Trial 7 Attorney, Office of Immigration 8 Litigation, United States 9 Department of Justice, Washington, 10 DC. 11 Petitioner Oscar Francisco Rauda, pro se, moves for leave 12 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), appointment of counsel, 13 and a stay of removal in connection with his petition for 14 review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals 15 (“BIA”) affirming a decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) 16 ordering his removal from the United States and denying all 17 ancillary requested relief. In re Oscar Francisco Rauda, No. 18 A041 713 664 (B.I.A. Aug. 12, 2021), aff’g No. A041 713 664 19 (Immig. Ct. Mar. 29, 2021). 20 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, it is hereby ORDERED that the 21 IFP motion is DENIED and the petition is DISMISSED because it 22 “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke 23 v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915(e)(2)(B). 25 In 2020, Rauda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was 26 placed in removal proceedings for (1) a 2006 conviction in 2 1 Massachusetts for violating an order of protection and (2) a 2 2019 conviction of indecent assault and battery on a child 3 under Massachusetts General Law § 265.13B. Rauda then 4 applied for withholding of removal and relief under the 5 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 6 Following a hearing at which Rauda testified, the IJ 7 denied all requested relief. The IJ found that Rauda was 8 deportable as charged, based in part on his 2006 conviction 9 for …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals