10-1956-ag Vaval v. Holder BIA Page, IJ A029 524 074 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT** 

## SUMMARY ORDER

**RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. C** **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER**  **FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERM ITTED 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 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 8 th** **day of July, two thousand eleven.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **GUIDO CALABRESI,** 7 **GERARD E. LYNCH,** 8 **RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,** 9 Circuit Judges**.** 10

**_______________________________________** 11 12 **JEAN PATRICK VAVAL, a.k.a. PATRICK J.** 13 **VAVAL, a.k.a. PATRICK SHERISKA, a.k.a.** 14 **JEAN VAVAE,** 15 Petitioner**,** 16 17 **v. 10-1956-ag** 18 **NAC** 19 **ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES** 20 **ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 21 Respondent **.** 22

**_______________________________________** 23 24 **FOR PETITIONER: Fay Y. Parris, New York, New York.** 25 26 **FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney** 27 **General; Emily Anne Radford,** 28 **Assistant Director; Kohsei Ugumori,** 29 **Attorney, Office of Immigration** 30 **Litigation, United States Department** 31 **of Justice, Washington, D.C.** 322 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is 2 hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for 3 review is DISMISSED. 4 Petitioner Jean Patrick Vaval, a native and citizen of 5 Haiti, seeks review of an April 15, 2010, order of the BIA 6 affirming immigration judge (“IJ”) Alan Page’s November 25, 7 2009, denial of his application for deferral of removal 8 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jean 9 Patrick Vaval , No. A029 524 074 (B.I.A. April 15, 2010), 10 aff’g No. A029 524 074 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 25, 2009). 11 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 12 and procedural history of this case. 13 Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), we lack jurisdiction to 14 review any final order of removal against an alien who is 15 removable by reason of having been convicted of an 16 aggravated felony. Although we have never expressly held 17 that this jurisdictional bar applies to claims for deferral 18 of removal under the CAT, we have assumed, without 19 discussion, that it is indeed applicable to such claims. 20

See De La Rosa v. Holder, 598 F.3d 103, 107 (2d Cir. 2010); 21 see also Poole v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 259, 262 (2d Cir. 2008). 22 Thus, because Vaval was found removable as an aggravated 233 felon, we find, as we did in Poole , that we lack 1 jurisdiction to consider his challenge to the agency’s 2 denial of his claim for deferral of removal.See 8 U.S.C. 3 § 1252(a)(2)(C); see also Poole , 522 F.3d at 262. 4 Notwithstanding 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), we retain 5 jurisdiction to consider any “constitutional claims or 6 questions of law” raised in a petition for review. See 7 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Here, Vaval argues that the 8 agency erred by failing to consider evidence in the record, 9 specifically (1) country conditions evidence documenting 10 human rights abuses in Haiti; (2) the testimony and 11 supporting documentation of his expert witness, Michelle 12 Karshan; and (3) a medical report documenting his 13 preexisting injuries. However, we have rejected the notion 14 that the agency must “expressly parse or refute on the 15 record each individual argument or piece of evidence offered 16 by the petitioner.” Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138, 17 169 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of 18 Justice , 471 F.3d 315, 337 n.17 (2d Cir. 2006) (presuming 19 that the agency “has taken into account all of the evidence 20 before [it], unless the record compellingly suggests 21 otherwise”). In any event, both the BIA and the IJ 224 explicitly considered the above-cited evidence in finding 1 that Vaval failed to establish his eligibility for deferral 2 of removal . Thus, Vaval’s challenge to the agency’s 3 decision is “essentially a quarrel about fact-finding or the 4 exercise of discretion” rather than a constitutional or 5 legal claim. See Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales , 516 F.3d 35, 6 39 (2d Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to 7 consider his petition for review. See 8 U.S.C. 8 § 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D); Poole , 522 F.3d at 262. 9 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 10 DISMISSED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 11 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 12 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 13 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 14

FOR THE COURT: 15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 16 17 18