19-3422 Rodriguez Suriel v. Garland BIA Farber, IJ A037 633 508 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 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 21st day of April, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 10 MYRNA PÉREZ, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 ESMERALDO ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ 15 SURIEL, AKA ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, 16 AKA MARCOS ANTONI, AKA GERALDO 17 RODRIGUEZ, 18 Petitioner, 19 20 v. 19-3422 21 NAC 22 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 23 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 24 Respondent. 25 _____________________________________ 26 27 1 FOR PETITIONER: Paul B. Grotas, Esq., New York, 2 NY. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy 5 Assistant Attorney General; 6 Jeffery R. Leist, Senior Litigation 7 Counsel; Kathleen Kelly Volkert, 8 Trial Attorney, Office of 9 Immigration Litigation, United 10 States Department of Justice, 11 Washington, DC. 12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 13 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 14 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 15 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 16 Petitioner Esmeraldo Antonio Rodriguez Suriel, a native 17 and citizen of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of a 18 September 20, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a February 19 22, 2019 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied 20 his motion to reopen his withholding-only proceedings to seek 21 withholding of removal and protection under the Convention 22 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Rodriguez Suriel, No. A037 23 633 508 (B.I.A. Sept. 20, 2019), aff’g No. A037 633 508 24 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Feb. 22, 2019). 25 Rodriguez Suriel was ordered removed in 2003, and that 26 2003 order was reinstated after his unlawful reentries in 2 1 2009 and 2017. Following the 2017 entry he was referred to 2 an IJ for withholding-only proceedings. He was removed again 3 after the IJ and the BIA denied withholding of removal and 4 CAT relief. He again reentered and now challenges the 5 agency’s denial of his motion to reopen his withholding-only 6 proceedings. 7 Although the parties do not address jurisdiction, “we 8 have an independent obligation” to determine jurisdiction. 9 Zaluski v. INS, 37 F.3d 72, 73 (2d Cir. 1994). …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals