Filed: Feb. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: 15-2504 Gobind v. Sessions BIA Connelly, IJ A59 082 825 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
Summary: 15-2504 Gobind v. Sessions BIA Connelly, IJ A59 082 825 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 ..
More
15-2504
Gobind v. Sessions
BIA
Connelly, IJ
A59 082 825
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 14th day of February, two thousand seventeen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
8 BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 PRADEEP GOBIND,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 15-2504
17 NAC
18 JEFF SESSIONS, UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,1
20 Respondent.
21 _____________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: Samuel N. Iroegbu, Albany, N.Y.
24
1 - Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney
General Jeff Sessions is automatically substituted for former
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, as the Respondent in this case.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
2 Assistant Attorney General; John S.
3 Hogan, Assistant Director; Samuel P.
4 Go, Senior Litigation Counsel,
5 Office of Immigration Litigation,
6 United States Department of Justice,
7 Washington, D.C.
8
9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is
12 DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.
13 Petitioner Pradeep Gobind, a native and citizen of Guyana,
14 seeks review of a July 9, 2015, decision of the BIA, affirming
15 an April 28, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
16 denying Gobind’s application for asylum, withholding of
17 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
18 (“CAT”). In re Pradeep Gobind, No. A59 082 825 (B.I.A. July
19 9, 2015), aff’g No. A59 082 825 (Immig. Ct. Batavia Apr. 28,
20 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
21 facts and procedural history in this case.
22 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the
23 IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237
24 (2d Cir. 2008). We generally lack jurisdiction to review a
25 final order of removal of an alien, like Gobind, who has been
26 ordered removed on the basis of an aggravated felony conviction.
2
1 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Ortiz-Franco v. Holder, 782 F.3d 81,
2 86 (2d Cir. 2015). But this jurisdictional limitation does not
3 extend to constitutional claims or questions of law. 8 U.S.C.
4 § 1252(a)(2)(D).
5 Although Gobind’s challenge to the agency’s aggravated
6 felony determination presents a reviewable question of law, see
7 Vargas-Sarmiento v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
448 F.3d 159, 164-65
8 (2d Cir.2006), it is explicitly foreclosed by our decision in
9 Mugalli v. Ashcroft,
258 F.3d 52, 61-62 (2d Cir. 2001) (holding
10 that “a conviction under [NYPL § 130.25(2)] meets the BIA’s
11 interpretation of sexual abuse of a minor” and is therefore an
12 aggravated felony). We therefore deny Gobind’s petition as it
13 relates to the agency’s denial of asylum.
14 We dismiss the remainder of the petition for lack of
15 jurisdiction because Gobind has failed to raise a
16 constitutional claim or question of law with respect to the
17 agency’s denials of withholding of removal and CAT relief.
18 Gobind avers generally that his testimony and evidence were
19 sufficient to meet his burdens of proof. He does not challenge
20 the agency’s determination that he did not meet his burden for
21 withholding of removal because he had not shown that the harm
22 he feared from his victim’s family was on account of a protected
3
1 ground; he also fails to challenge the agency’s determination
2 that he did not meet his burden for CAT relief because he failed
3 to show the necessary governmental action or acquiescence in
4 any prospective harm by the victim’s family. He has therefore
5 waived review of these determinations, which are, in any event,
6 legally sound. See Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d
7 Cir. 1998) (“Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are
8 considered waived and normally will not be addressed on
9 appeal.”); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16 (predicating eligibility
10 for withholding of removal on a showing that the applicant’s
11 “life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed country
12 of removal on account of race, religion, nationality,
13 membership in a particular social group, or political opinion”
14 (emphasis added)); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) (providing that
15 “torture” under the CAT must be “inflicted by or at the
16 instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public
17 official or other person acting in an official capacity”).
18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
19 DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART. As we have completed our
20 review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted
21 in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay
22 of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending
4
1 request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in
2 accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2),
3 and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
5
