13-3830 

Reynolds v. Holder

BIA

Straus, IJ

A042 861 061

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 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

for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 27th day of October, two thousand fourteen.

PRESENT:

ROBERT A. KATZMANN,

Chief Judge,

JON O. NEWMAN,

PETER W. HALL,

Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________

DAMIAN SALVADOR REYNOLDS, aka DOMAIN

REYNOLDS,

Petitioner, 

 13-3830

 v. NAC

 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

_____________________________________

FOR PETITIONER: Gregory Osakwe, Hartford, CT. 

FOR RESPONDENT: 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.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the petition for review

is DENIED.

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 (“IJ”) 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

2
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 meritless.

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.

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

3