19-3174 Watson v. Garland BIA Cortes, IJ A088 445 167 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 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 23rd day of June, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 8 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CHARLES LETTS WATSON, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-3174 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Craig Relles, White Plains, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Derek C. Julius, 27 Assistant Director, Katherine A. 28 Smith, Trial Attorney, Office of 1 Immigration Litigation, United 2 States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, D.C. 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED. 8 Petitioner Charles Letts Watson, a native and citizen of 9 Jamaica, seeks review of a September 17, 2019 decision of the 10 BIA affirming an April 23, 2019 decision of an Immigration 11 Judge (“IJ”) denying his applications for cancellation of 12 removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the 13 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Charles Letts 14 Watson, No. A 088 445 167 (B.I.A. Sept. 17, 2019), aff’g No. 15 A 088 445 167 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 23, 2019). We assume 16 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 17 procedural history. 18 We “review the judgment of the IJ as modified by the 19 BIA’s decision — that is, minus the . . . argument[s] for 20 denying relief that w[ere] rejected by the BIA.” Xue Hong 21 Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 22 Because Watson does not raise his CAT claim in this Court, we 23 address only cancellation and withholding of removal. 2 1 I. Cancellation of Removal 2 A nonpermanent resident such as Watson may have his 3 removal cancelled if, among other requirements, he has “been 4 a person of good moral character [for at least the 10 years 5 immediately preceding his application].” 8 U.S.C. 6 § 1229b(b)(1). …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals