Filed: May 19, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: 10-1449-ag Jones v. Holder BIA A020 421 613 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 “S
Summary: 10-1449-ag Jones v. Holder BIA A020 421 613 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 “SU..
More
10-1449-ag
Jones v. Holder
BIA
A020 421 613
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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 19th day of May, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 MARIANIE NOZE JONES, AKA CALINA JONES,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-1449-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 ______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Douglas B. Payne, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Blair O’Connor, Assistant
28 Director; Rachel Browning, Trial
29 Attorney, Office of Immigration
30 Litigation, Civil Division, United
31 States Department of Justice,
32 Washington, D.C.
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 DISMISSED.
5 Petitioner Marianie Noze Jones, a native and citizen of
6 Haiti, seeks review of a March 22, 2010, order of the BIA
7 denying her motion to reopen. In re Marianie Noze Jones,
8 No. A20 421 613 (B.I.A. Mar. 22, 2010). We assume the
9 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
10 procedural history of this case.
11 Because Jones is removable by reason of having
12 committed a criminal offense covered by 8 U.S.C.
13 § 1182(a)(2) (relating to convictions of crimes of moral
14 turpitude), we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s
15 factual findings and discretionary determinations.
16 See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Although we retain
17 jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions
18 of law, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Jones’s challenge to
19 the BIA’s determination that her motion to reopen was
20 untimely filed and that she failed to establish eligibility
21 for an exception to the timeliness requirement raises no
22 such argument. Jones contends that the BIA’s “gross errors”
2
1 deprived her of due process. A petitioner must do more than
2 merely assert that some error violated her due process
3 rights. See Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 40 (2d
4 Cir. 2008) (concluding that the Court lacks jurisdiction to
5 review “insubstantial and frivolous” constitutional claims
6 and questions of law). Instead, the petitioner must assert
7 a claim that actually raises a substantial constitutional
8 question. Here, Jones fails to assert such a claim, as the
9 substance of Jones’s arguments is only that the BIA erred in
10 finding that the changes in Haiti due to natural disasters
11 were not material to her claims for asylum, withholding of
12 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
13 Her unsupported and conclusory constitutional claim does not
14 provide us with jurisdiction to review the agency’s fact-
15 finding. See Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 471
16 F.3d 315, 329-30 (2d Cir. 2006).
17 To the extent Jones alleges a violation of due process
18 because she contends that the agency failed to consider
19 material evidence, this argument is also so insubstantial
20 that it does not provide us with jurisdiction. See
21
Barco-Sandoval, 516 F.3d at 40. Jones’s cursory contention
22 that the BIA did not consider evidence of country conditions
23 is belied by her contrary contention that the BIA erred in
3
1 its assessment of that evidence. Moreover, contrary to her
2 assertions, the BIA did explicitly refer to Jones’s evidence
3 of changed conditions in Haiti, and this Court does not
4 require the BIA to “expressly parse or refute on the record
5 each individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the
6 petitioner” to establish that it has considered the
7 evidence. See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 169
8 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also
9 Xiao Ji
Chen, 471 F.3d at 337 n.17 (presuming that the
10 agency “has taken into account all of the evidence before
11 [it], unless the record compellingly suggests otherwise”).
12 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
13 DISMISSED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
14 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
15 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
16 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for
17 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
18 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
19 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
20 FOR THE COURT:
21 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4
