J.P.B. v. Garland

21-6506 J.P.B. v. Garland BIA Reid, IJ A070 524 933 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 2 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley 3 Square, in the City of New York, on the 21st day of September, two thousand 4 twenty-three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 DENNY CHIN, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 J.P.B., 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 21-6506 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 1 The Clerk of Court is instructed to amend the caption as set forth above. We have elected, nostra sponte, to abbreviate the Petitioner’s name in this summary order. See 2d Cir. Local Rule 27.1(j). 1 _____________________________________ 2 3 FOR PETITIONER: Craig Relles, Esq., Law Office of Craig Relles, 4 White Plains, NY. 5 6 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant 7 Attorney General; Mary Jane Candaux, 8 Assistant Director; A. Ashley Arthur, Trial 9 Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 10 United States Department of Justice, 11 Washington, DC. 12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 13 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 14 DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. 15 Petitioner J.P.B., a native and citizen of Liberia, seeks review of a September 16 14, 2021, decision of the BIA reversing a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 17 that granted his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against 18 Torture (“CAT”). In re J.P.B., No. A 070 524 933 (B.I.A. Sept. 14, 2021), vacating 19 No. A 070 524 933 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 28, 2020). We assume the parties’ 20 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 21 When the BIA reverses an IJ’s grant of relief, we treat the BIA’s decision as 22 the final agency determination. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d 23 Cir. 2005). We review factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of 2 1 law de novo. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020); Manning v. Barr, 2 954 F.3d 477, 484 (2d Cir. 2020); see also Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130, 134 3 (2d Cir. 2012) (explaining that the likelihood of a future event is a finding of …

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