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 

New York, on the 15th 4 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, 
2

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). 
3

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 
4

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.