17-133 Lora v. Sessions BIA Buchanan, IJ A041 598 311 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 28th day of November, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 8 ROBERT D. SACK, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 DANILDA LORA, AKA DANILDA OSORIA, 14 AKA DANILDA LORA OSORIA, AKA 15 DANILDA L. OSORIA, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 17-133 19 NAC 20 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 21 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Craig Relles, White Plains, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, 29 Assistant Director; Laura Halliday 30 Hickein, Trial Attorney, Office of 31 Immigration Litigation, United 32 States Department of Justice, 33 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 is 4 DENIED. 5 Petitioner Danilda Lora, a native and citizen of the 6 Dominican Republic, seeks review of a December 20, 2016 decision 7 of the BIA affirming a July 20, 2016 decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying Lora’s application for relief under the 9 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Danilda Lora, No. A 10 041 598 311 (B.I.A. Dec. 20, 2016), aff’g No. A 041 598 311 (Immig. 11 Ct. N.Y.C. July 20, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity 12 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 13 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, 14 and, as did the BIA, we assume Lora’s credibility, 15 notwithstanding the IJ’s mixed findings in that regard. See Xue 16 Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 17 2005); Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). 18 Lora’s conviction in 2014 for drug-related offenses limits our 19 review to constitutional claims and questions of law, as to 20 which we review the BIA’s rulings de novo. 8 U.S.C. 21 § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); Ortiz-Franco v. Holder, 782 F.3d 81, 90 22 (2d Cir. 2015). Lora presents two such claims here: that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals