Zeferino Carranza v. Sessions

17-981 Zeferino Carranza v. Sessions BIA Connelly, IJ A206 471 686 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 16th day of May, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 Chief Judge, 9 JON O. NEWMAN 10 PETER W. HALL, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 MAURICIO ZEFERINO CARRANZA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-981 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Samuel N. Iroegbu, Albany, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Stephen J. 28 Flynn, Assistant Director; Robert 29 M. Stalzer, Trial Attorney; Arthur 1 L. Rabin, Trial Attorney, Office 2 of Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in remaining part. 10 Petitioner Mauricio Zeferino Carranza, a native and 11 citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a March 9, 2017, decision 12 of the BIA affirming a September 9, 2016, decision of an 13 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Carranza’s application for 14 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 15 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mauricio Zeferino 16 Carranza, No. A 206 471 686 (B.I.A. Mar. 9, 2017), aff’g No. 17 A 206 471 686 (Batavia Sept. 9, 2016). We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 19 in this case. 20 The Government moves for summary denial of Carranza’s 21 petition for review. Summary denial is warranted only if a 22 petition is frivolous, Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir. 23 1995). Because Carranza has filed his merits brief, we 2 1 decline to address whether the petition is frivolous and 2 instead treat the Government’s motion as a response to that 3 brief. 4 We have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions “for 5 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 6 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The standards of 7 review are ...

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