Subhani v. Garland

21-6172 Subhani v. Garland BIA Loprest, IJ A209 870 496 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 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 19th day of January, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 Chief Judge, 10 BETH ROBINSON, 11 MYRNA PÉREZ, 12 Circuit Judges. 13 _____________________________________ 14 15 JUNAID SUBHANI, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 21-6172 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Judy Resnick, Esq., Far Rockaway, 27 NY. 28 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Anthony P. 3 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 4 Jenny C. Lee, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DENIED. 12 Petitioner Junaid Subhani, a native and citizen of 13 Pakistan, seeks review of a March 1, 2021, decision of the 14 BIA affirming a November 13, 2018, decision of an Immigration 15 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding 16 of removal, and protection under the Convention Against 17 Torture (“CAT”). In re Junaid Subhani, No. A209 870 496 18 (B.I.A. Mar. 1, 2021), aff’g No. A209 870 496 (Immig. Ct. 19 N.Y. City Nov. 13, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 20 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 21 In lieu of filing a brief, the Government moves for 22 summary denial of Subhani’s petition for review. Summary 23 denial is a “rare exception to the completion of the appeal 24 process” and “is available only if an appeal is truly 25 frivolous.” United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 10, 13 (2d Cir. 2 1 2010) (quotation marks omitted). A claim is frivolous if it 2 is based on an “inarguable legal conclusion” or “fanciful 3 factual allegation.” Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 16 (2d Cir. 4 1995) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). 5 However, “not all unsuccessful claims are frivolous.” 6 Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 329. Subhani has filed his brief, so 7 rather than …

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