17-1675 Woolery v. Whitaker BIA Straus, IJ A077 723 161 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 15th day of January, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SYLVAN JAMES WOOLERY, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 17-1675 17 NAC 18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Osakwe, Hartford, CT. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Margaret Kuehne 27 Taylor, Senior Litigation Counsel; 28 Elizabeth K. Fitzgerald-Sambou, 29 Trial Attorney, Office of 30 Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Sylvan James Woolery, a native and citizen of 6 Jamaica, seeks review of an April 26, 2017, decision of the 7 BIA affirming the March 9, 2016, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for withholding of 9 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture 10 (“CAT”). In re Sylvan James Woolery, No. A077 723 161 (B.I.A. 11 Apr. 26, 2017), aff’g No. A077 723 161 (Immig. Ct. Hartford 12 Mar. 9, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 14 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the 15 BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 16 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The only issues before us are 17 whether Woolery established his eligibility for withholding 18 of removal or CAT relief. The applicable standards of review 19 are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin 20 Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency 21 did not err in finding that Woolery failed to establish his 22 eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT relief based on 2 1 his claim that he was shot in Jamaica in 1992 and that he 2 fears gang violence in that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals