Thomas v. Garland

20-1824 Thomas v. Garland 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 for the Second Circuit, held at the 2 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 3 15th day of October, two thousand twenty-one. 4 5 Present: 6 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 7 Chief Judge, 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 PHILBERT ONEIL THOMAS, 14 15 Petitioner, 16 v. 20-1824 17 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 For Petitioner: GARY J. YERMAN, The Yerman Group, LLC, New 25 York, NY. 26 27 For Respondent: RACHEL L. BROWNING, Trial Attorney, Office of 28 Immigration Litigation, for KEITH I. MCMANUS, 29 Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, 30 and BRIAN BOYNTON, Acting Assistant Attorney 31 General, Civil Division, United States Department of 32 Justice, Washington, D.C. 1 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration 2 Appeals (“BIA”) decision, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 3 the petition for review is DENIED in part, and DISMISSED in part. 4 Petitioner Philbert Oneil Thomas, a citizen of Jamaica, seeks review of a May 19, 2020 5 decision of the BIA affirming a May 2, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) finding 6 Thomas removable and denying his applications for adjustment of status and cancellation of 7 removal. In re Philbert Oneil Thomas, No. A096 656 563 (B.I.A. May 19, 2020), aff’g No. 096 8 656 563 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 2, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 9 underlying facts and procedural history. 10 “Where the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ and merely supplements the IJ’s decision, . . . 11 we review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA.” Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 12 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The standards of review are well-established; we review the agency’s 13 findings of fact for substantial evidence, id., treating them as “conclusive unless any reasonable 14 adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and 15 questions of law and applications of law to fact de novo, Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 16 513 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency’s decision “must be upheld if ‘supported by reasonable, 17 …

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