Case ID: f-appx_581/html/0079-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Damian Salvador REYNOLDS, aka Domain Reynolds, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-3830.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Oct. 27, 2014.
    Gregory Osakwe, Hartford, CT, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director; Carlton Frederick Sheffield, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, JON O. NEWMAN, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner moves for a stay of removal in conjunction with his petition for review of a decision of the BIA affirming the conclusion of an Immigration Judge (“U”) that he was not eligible for relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Respondent moves to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

The Government asks us to dismiss the petition, arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) because Petitioner does not raise any non-frivolous, colorable questions of law or constitutional claims with regard to the denial of CAT relief. However, we have not expressly held that the jurisdictional bar contained in § 1252(a)(2)(C) applies to claims for deferral of removal under the CAT. Nevertheless, we need not confront the jurisdictional question because we may exercise hypothetical jurisdiction “where the jurisdictional constraints are imposed by statute, not the Constitution, and where the jurisdictional issues are complex and the substance of the claim is ... plainly without merit.” Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332, 338 n. 2 (2d Cir. 2006). We have reviewed the Petitioner’s objections to the IJ and BIA’s factual and legal determinations regarding his application for CAT relief, and they are merit-less.

Accordingly, we assert hypothetical jurisdiction, and the petition for review is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to dismiss and Petitioner’s motion for a stay of removal are DENIED as moot.