16-3850 Veras-Hernandez v. Sessions BIA Straus, IJ A206 781 552 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 9th day of July, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 WANDER ELIEZER VERAS-HERNANDEZ, 13 AKA TITO LOPEZ, AKA WANDER 14 VERAS-HERNANDEZ, AKA WANBER 15 VERAS HERNANDEZ, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 16-3850 19 NAC 20 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Jon E. Jessen, Law Offices of Jon 26 E. Jessen, LLC, Stamford, CT. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 29 Attorney General; Derek C. Julius, 30 Assistant Director; W. Daniel 31 Shieh, Trial Attorney, Office of 32 Immigration Litigation, United 33 States Department of Justice, 34 Washington, 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 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Wander Eliezer Veras-Hernandez, a native and 6 citizen of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of an 7 October 14, 2016 decision of the BIA affirming a March 17, 8 2016 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Veras- 9 Hernandez’s applications for asylum, withholding of 10 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 11 (“CAT”). In re Wander Eliezer Veras-Hernandez, No. A 206 12 781 552 (B.I.A. Oct. 14, 2016), aff’g No. A 206 781 552 13 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Mar. 17, 2016). We assume the 14 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 15 procedural history in this case, to which we refer only as 16 necessary to explain our decision to deny the petition for 17 review. 18 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the 19 IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. 20 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 21 Accordingly, we do not reach Veras-Hernandez’s challenges 22 to the IJ’s “particularly serious crime” determination: the 2 1 BIA did not review or rely on that determination. See id. 2 Moreover, Veras-Hernandez was ordered removed for, inter 3 alia, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals