Suriel v. Sessions

17-134 Suriel v. Sessions BIA Lyons, IJ A058 293 487 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 25th day of May, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JUAN ELIAS SURIEL, Petitioner, v. 17-134 NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Craig Relles, White Plains, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director; Song E. Park, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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 GRANTED. Petitioner Juan Elias Suriel, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of a December 15, 2016, decision of the BIA vacating a July 20, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granting Suriel’s application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Juan Elias Suriel, No. A058 293 487 (B.I.A. Dec. 15, 2016), vacating No. A058 293 487 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 20, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Because the BIA vacated the IJ’s grant of CAT deferral, we review the BIA’s opinion as the final decision. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). Our jurisdiction to review a final 2 order of removal of an alien who, like Suriel, was ordered removed for an aggravated felony or a controlled substance offense, is limited to “constitutional claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D). We therefore retain jurisdiction to consider Suriel’s arguments that the BIA misapplied clear error review and the governmental acquiescence standard. See Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130, 135 (2d Cir. 2012); Khan v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 31, 35 (2d Cir. 2007). An applicant who establishes that he likely will be tortured in the country of removal is eligible for deferral of removal under the ...

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