19-3704 Zhunusov v. Garland BIA Montante, IJ A215 671 266 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. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 10th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, REENA RAGGI, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ BAKTIIAR ZHUNUSOV, Petitioner, v. 19-3704 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: JILLIAN E. NOWAK, ESQ. (Karen Murtagh- Monks, Executive Director, on the brief) for Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York, Buffalo, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: JONATHAN ROBBINS, Senior Litigation Counsel, (Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director, on the brief) for Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Baktiiar Zhunusov, a native of Kyrgyzstan and citizen of Russia, seeks review of a BIA decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Baktiiar Zhunusov, No. A215 671 266 (B.I.A. Oct. 8, 2019), aff’g No. A 215 671 266 (Immigr. Ct. Batavia Apr. 23, 2019). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 1 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA and reach only the grounds that the BIA relied on in sustaining the 1 The government argues that Zhunusov’s petition is now moot because of his removal and his failure to maintain contact with his counsel during the intervening 18 months. Resp’t Ltr. Br. at 5-6. A petitioner’s removal ordinarily does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction to consider a petition for review. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 424 (2009); Swaby v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 156, 161 (2d Cir. 2004). Zhunusov’s counsel has informed the Court that Zhunusov authorized counsel to pursue the present petition for review, and the government conceded at oral argument that, if Zhunusov’s petition is granted, it would be obligated to attempt to facilitate his return to the United States. Accordingly, we conclude that Zhunusov’s petition for review is not moot. We therefore consider it on the merits. 2 IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals