Seepersad v. Sessions

16-64 Seepersad v. Sessions BIA Videla, IJ A029 380 732 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 8th day of June, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, PETER W. HALL, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ASHRAM SEEPERSAD, Petitioner, v. 16-64 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: RION LATIMORE, Minneapolis, MN. FOR RESPONDENT: BENJAMIN C. MIZER, Assistant Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director; Tim Ramnitz, 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 DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Petitioner Ashram Seepersad, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, seeks review of a December 9, 2015, decision of the BIA, affirming a September 4, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Seepersad withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). In re Ashram Seepersad, No. A029 380 732 (B.I.A. Dec. 9, 2015), aff’g No. A029 380 732 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 4, 2015). In a separate per curiam opinion issued today, we deny Seepersad’s petition as it relates to the waiver of inadmissibility. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Seepersad’s criminal conviction limits our jurisdiction to constitutional claims and colorable questions of law, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), for which our review is de novo, Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). Seepersad raises 2 no such claims with respect to the agency’s conclusion that he failed to show “that it is [was] more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review to the extent that it challenges the denial of CAT relief. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir. 2006). Seepersad seeks withholding of removal based on his ...

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