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.**  **At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 15 th**  **day of July, two thousand nineteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 8 **DENNY CHIN,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **DUJON LUTHER MANLEY,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 16-2640** 16 **NAC** 17 **WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES** 18 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Ishan K. Bhabha, Jenner and Block 23 LLP, Washington, DC. 24 25 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 26 Attorney General; Linda S. 27 Wernery, Assistant Director; 28 Gregory M. Kelch, Trial Attorney, 29 Office of Immigration Litigation, 302 United States Department of 1 Justice, Washington, DC. 2 3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 4 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby 5 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 6 is DENIED. 7 Petitioner Dujon Luther Manley, a native and citizen of 8 Jamaica, seeks review of a July 18, 2016, decision of the BIA 9 affirming the January 22, 2016, decision of an Immigration 10 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for withholding of 11 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture 12 (“CAT”). In re Dujon Luther Manley, No. A206 471 587 (B.I.A. 13 July 18, 2016), aff’g No. A206 471 587 (Immig. Ct. Napanoch 14 Jan. 22, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 15 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 16 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions 17 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of 18 Homeland Sec. , 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). Our 19 jurisdiction is limited to constitutional claims and 20 questions of law given that Manley is removable by reason of 21 having been convicted of a controlled substance offense and 22 an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); see 23 also Ortiz-Franco v. Holder , 782 F.3d 81, 91 (2d Cir. 2015). 243 We review such claims de novo. Pierre v. Gonzales , 502 F.3d 1 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2007). 2 We find no error in t he BIA’s determination that Manley 3 waived on appeal any challenge to the IJ’s findings that his 4 conviction was for a particularly serious crime barring him 5 from withholding of removal and that he was not credible as 6 to his CAT claim. See Steevenez v. Gonzales , 476 F.3d 114, 7 117 (2d Cir. 2007) (“To preserve an issue for judicial review, 8 the petitioner must first raise it with specificity before 9 the BIA.”). Even liberally construing Manley’s pro se brief 10 to the BIA, he did not challenge the IJ’s specific findings 11 that he failed to submit any of the evidence required to rebut 12 the presumption that his drug trafficking conviction was a 13 particularly serious crime or that his testimony was not 14 plausible and his evidence not consistent to credibly 15 establish his eligibility for CAT relief. See id. at 117- 16 18. Accordingly, we may not consider those unexhausted 17 issues, which were dispositive of withholding of removal and 18 CAT relief.* See id

. 19 We decline to hold Manley’s petition in abeyance pending 20 resolution of his appeal of the denial of his motion to vacate 21

* 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 he4 his conviction in state court because his conviction is final 1 for immigration purposes, see Montilla v. INS , 926 F.2d 162, 2 164 (2d Cir. 1991); Matter of J.M. Acosta , 27 I. & N. Dec. 3 420, 432 (BIA 2018), and his motion to vacate appears to be 4 without merit given that he was warned of the immigration 5 consequences of his guilty plea, Padilla v. Kentucky , 559 6 U.S. 356, 368-69 (2010). 7 For the foregoing reasons, the motion to hold the 8 petition in abeyance and the petition for review are DENIED. 9

FOR THE COURT: 10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe 11 Clerk of Court 12

was found not credible based on more than just the implausibility of his testimony.