Vorfi v. Sessions

15-4183 Vorfi v. Sessions BIA Nelson, IJ A205 046 574 / 575 / 576 / 577 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 for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 6th day of October, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ZEF VORFI, AKA GEORGIO 14 MOUSAILIDIS, MARINGLESTA HASHSYA, 15 AKA CHRISTINA PECHLIVANDI, EMELI 16 VORFI, AKA MARIA DIMITRA 17 MOUSAILIDIS, ELVIN VORFI, AKA 18 IOANNIS APAZIDIS, 19 Petitioners, 20 21 v. 15-4183 22 NAC 23 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 24 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 25 Respondent. 26 _____________________________________ 27 28 FOR PETITIONERS: Sokol Braha, New York, NY. 29 30 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 2 Assistant Attorney General, Stephen 3 J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Robert 4 Michael Stalzer, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of Justice, 7 Washington, DC. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 12 DENIED. 13 Petitioners Zef Vorfi (“Vorfi”), his wife Maringlesta 14 Hashysa, and their minor children Elvin and Emili Vorfi, all 15 citizens of Albania, seek review of a December 17, 2015, 16 decision of the BIA affirming a April 20, 2015, decision of an 17 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Vorfi’s application for 18 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 19 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Zef Vorfi, et al., No. A205 046 20 574/575/576/577 (B.I.A. Dec. 17, 2015), aff’g No. A205 046 21 574/575/576/577 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 20, 2015). We 22 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 23 procedural history in this case. 24 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. 25 See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 26 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review are well established. 2 1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4); Gjolaj v. Bureau of Citizenship and 2 Immigration Servs., 468 F.3d 140, 142 (2d Cir. 2006). Vorfi 3 applied for relief based on his fear of harm because he is 4 Catholic and ...

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