16-2516 Hilario-Hilario v. Sessions BIA Bukszpan, IJ A055 015 119 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 13th day of October, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 BILMA ALTAGRACIA HILARIO-HILARIO, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-2516 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Joshua Bardavid, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Papu Sandhu, 27 Assistant Director; Victor M. 28 Lawrence, Senior Litigation 29 Counsel, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation, United States 31 Department of Justice, Washington, 32 DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Bilma Altagracia Hilario-Hilario, a native and 6 citizen of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of a June 24, 7 2016, decision of the BIA, affirming a July 30, 2015, decision 8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Hilario-Hilario’s 9 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 10 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Bilma 11 Altagracia Hilario-Hilario, No. A055 015 119 (B.I.A. June 24, 12 2016), aff’g No. A055 015 119 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 30, 13 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 14 facts and procedural history in this case. 15 Hilario-Hilario was ordered removed based on a conviction 16 for an aggravated felony and controlled substance offense, 17 thereby limiting our jurisdiction to constitutional claims and 18 questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D). We 19 review such claims de novo. Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 20 772 (2d Cir. 2009). Hilario-Hilario’s aggravated felony 21 conviction bars asylum, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 2 1 (b)(2)(B)(i), and she challenges only the denial of withholding 2 of removal and CAT relief. We find no error in the agency’s 3 denial of those forms of relief. 4 Hilario-Hilario’s conviction bars withholding of removal 5 if it is particularly serious. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). 6 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals