19-688 Velez-Ramirez v. Garland BIA Loprest, IJ A098 238 696 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 9th day of March, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 MICHAEL H. PARK, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 MEDARDO VELEZ-RAMIREZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-688 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, Youman, Madeo 24 & Fasano, LLP, New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted as Respondent. 1 General; Paul Fiorino, Senior 2 Litigation Counsel; Sherry D. 3 Soanes, Trial Attorney, Office of 4 Immigration Litigation, United 5 States Department of Justice, 6 Washington, DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 11 Petitioner Medardo Velez-Ramirez, a native and citizen 12 of Colombia, seeks review of a February 21, 2019 decision of 13 the BIA affirming a November 14, 2017 decision of an 14 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Velez-Ramirez’s application 15 for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 16 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Medardo Velez- 17 Ramirez, No. A 098 238 696 (B.I.A. Feb. 21, 2019), aff’g No. 18 A 098 238 696 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 14, 2017). We 19 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 20 procedural history. 21 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. 22 Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d 23 Cir. 2006). Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s finding 24 that an application was untimely or that the applicant did 2 1 not show changed or extraordinary circumstances is limited to 2 “constitutional claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1252(a)(2)(D); see id. § 1158(a)(3); Joaquin-Porras v. 4 Gonzales, 435 F.3d 172, 177–78 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the 5 agency’s legal conclusions de novo …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals