Morgan v. Garland ( 2022 )

19-1750
Morgan v. Garland
BIA
Mulligan, IJ
A055 563 276
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 7th day of February, two thousand twenty-
5 two.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,
10 STEVEN J. MENASHI,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 STEPHEN ALPHANSO MORGAN,
15 Petitioner,
16
17 v. 19-1750
18 NAC
19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21 Respondent.
22 _____________________________________
23
24 FOR PETITIONER: Kai W. De Graaf, Esq., Ada, MI.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant
27 Attorney General; Erica B. Miles,
28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Craig
1 A. Newell, Jr., Trial Attorney,
2 Office of Immigration Litigation,
3 United States Department of
4 Justice, Washington, DC.
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Petitioner Stephen Alphanso Morgan, a native and citizen
10 of Jamaica, seeks review of a May 31, 2019 decision of the
11 BIA affirming a December 18, 2018 decision of an Immigration
12 Judge (“IJ”) ordering Morgan’s removal for an aggravated
13 felony crime of violence and denying relief from removal under
14 the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Stephen
15 Alphanso Morgan, No. A 055 563 276 (B.I.A. May 31, 2019),
16 aff’g No. A 055 563 276 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 18, 2018).
17 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
18 and procedural history.
19 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions
20 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of
21 Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review
22 de novo whether a conviction is an aggravated felony.
23 Martinez v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 113, 117 (2d Cir. 2008). We
2
1 review factual challenges to the agency’s denial of CAT relief
2 under the substantial evidence standard. See Nasrallah v.
3 Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020).
4 The agency ordered Morgan removed for an aggravated
5 felony and specifically that his assault conviction under New
6 York Penal Law 120.05(2) is a crime of violence. Morgan’s
7 challenge to that determination is foreclosed by Singh v.
8 Barr, which holds that § 120.05(2) is categorically a crime
9 of violence. 939 F.3d 457, 462–64 (2d Cir. 2019). “In the
10 absence of any decisions by the Supreme Court or our own court
11 . . . that would cast doubt on [a decision’s] viability, . .
12 . a panel of this court will not overturn a . . . decision of
13 another panel, rendered after full consideration of the very
14 point at issue.” Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 623 F.2d
15 786, 788 (2d Cir. 1980).
16 Moreover, we find no error in the agency’s denial of CAT
17 relief. Morgan alleges that he is at risk of torture because
18 he was a member of the Jamaica Labor Party and members of a
19 rival party shot at him when he visited Jamaica in 2007.
20 But more than 13 years have passed since Morgan was last in
21 Jamaica, Morgan has not received any threats since the 2007
3
1 shooting, and his party is now in control of the government.
2 Thus, the BIA’s determination that petitioner failed to
3 establish that he would more likely than not be tortured by,
4 at the instigation of, with the consent of, or with the
5 acquiescence of a public official upon his return to Jamaica
6 is supported by substantial evidence. To the extent Morgan
7 argues that Jamaica’s generally high level of political
8 violence poses a threat to him, evidence of general political
9 violence, without more, is insufficient to show that Morgan
10 will likely be tortured. See Mu-Xing Wang v. Ashcroft, 320
11 F.3d 130, 144 (2d Cir. 2003) (requiring petitioners to provide
12 particularized evidence that they will more likely than not
13 be tortured in order to support a CAT claim).
14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
15 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
16 stays VACATED.
17 FOR THE COURT:
18 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
19 Clerk of Court
20
4