Filed: Jul. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 16-2640 Manley v. Barr BIA Sagerman, IJ A206 471 587 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 NO
Summary: 16-2640 Manley v. Barr BIA Sagerman, IJ A206 471 587 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 NOT..
More
16-2640
Manley v. Barr
BIA
Sagerman, IJ
A206 471 587
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 15th day of July, two thousand nineteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
8 GERARD E. LYNCH,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 DUJON LUTHER MANLEY,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 16-2640
17 NAC
18 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Ishan K. Bhabha, Jenner and Block
24 LLP, Washington, DC.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Linda S.
28 Wernery, Assistant Director;
29 Gregory M. Kelch, Trial Attorney,
30 Office of Immigration Litigation,
1 United States Department of
2 Justice, Washington, DC.
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby
6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
7 is DENIED.
8 Petitioner Dujon Luther Manley, a native and citizen of
9 Jamaica, seeks review of a July 18, 2016, decision of the BIA
10 affirming the January 22, 2016, decision of an Immigration
11 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for withholding of
12 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture
13 (“CAT”). In re Dujon Luther Manley, No. A206 471 587 (B.I.A.
14 July 18, 2016), aff’g No. A206 471 587 (Immig. Ct. Napanoch
15 Jan. 22, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
16 underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
17 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions
18 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of
19 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). Our
20 jurisdiction is limited to constitutional claims and
21 questions of law given that Manley is removable by reason of
22 having been convicted of a controlled substance offense and
23 an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); see
24 also Ortiz-Franco v. Holder,
782 F.3d 81, 91 (2d Cir. 2015).
2
1 We review such claims de novo. Pierre v. Gonzales, 502 F.3d
2 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2007).
3 We find no error in the BIA’s determination that Manley
4 waived on appeal any challenge to the IJ’s findings that his
5 conviction was for a particularly serious crime barring him
6 from withholding of removal and that he was not credible as
7 to his CAT claim. See Steevenez v. Gonzales,
476 F.3d 114,
8 117 (2d Cir. 2007) (“To preserve an issue for judicial review,
9 the petitioner must first raise it with specificity before
10 the BIA.”). Even liberally construing Manley’s pro se brief
11 to the BIA, he did not challenge the IJ’s specific findings
12 that he failed to submit any of the evidence required to rebut
13 the presumption that his drug trafficking conviction was a
14 particularly serious crime or that his testimony was not
15 plausible and his evidence not consistent to credibly
16 establish his eligibility for CAT relief. See
id. at 117-
17 18. Accordingly, we may not consider those unexhausted
18 issues, which were dispositive of withholding of removal and
19 CAT relief.* See
id.
20 We decline to hold Manley’s petition in abeyance pending
21 resolution of his appeal of the denial of his motion to vacate
* We note that, contrary to Manley’s contentions, he did not
provide any objective evidence to rebut the presumption that
his conviction was for a particularly serious crime and he
3
1 his conviction in state court because his conviction is final
2 for immigration purposes, see Montilla v. INS, 926 F.2d 162,
3 164 (2d Cir. 1991); Matter of J.M. Acosta, 27 I. & N. Dec.
4 420, 432 (BIA 2018), and his motion to vacate appears to be
5 without merit given that he was warned of the immigration
6 consequences of his guilty plea, Padilla v. Kentucky, 559
7 U.S. 356, 368-69 (2010).
8 For the foregoing reasons, the motion to hold the
9 petition in abeyance and the petition for review are DENIED.
10 FOR THE COURT:
11 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe
12 Clerk of Court
was found not credible based on more than just the
implausibility of his testimony.
4
