Ruano v. Sessions

17-499 Ruano v. Sessions BIA Straus, IJ A073 564 952 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 18th day of January, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ EDDY RUANO, Petitioner, v. 17-499 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Elyssa Williams, Formica Williams, P.C., New Haven, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; John S. Hogan, Assistant Director; Lindsay Corliss, Trial Attorney, 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 Eddy Ruano, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a February 3, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming an April 12, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering Ruano’s removal and denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Eddy Ruano, No. A 073 564 952 (B.I.A. Feb. 3, 2017), aff’g No. A 073 564 952 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Apr. 12, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Ruano entered an Alford plea for the offense of risk of injury to a minor in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-21(a)(1), for which crime he was sentenced to eight years’ incarceration. Ruano was charged as removable on the grounds that a conviction under that statute constitutes (1) a crime of child abuse, neglect, or abandonment under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i); and (2) an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). Each basis is independently sufficient for removal. Here, the IJ conducted a categorical analysis to conclude that Ruano was removable for a crime of child abuse, but expressly found that the Government had failed to establish that Ruano’s conviction constituted an aggravated felony. In affirming the IJ’s conclusion that Ruano was removable, the BIA noted Ruano’s failure to challenge the crime-of-child abuse determination. [CAR at 3.] To the extent he attempts to do so for the first time on appeal, we decline to entertain that challenge. See ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals