Court Opinion

ID: 9388666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 14:00:25.702554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:21.669333
License: Public Domain

19-3422
     Rodriguez Suriel v. Garland
                                                                            BIA
                                                                       Farber, IJ
                                                                    A037 633 508
                              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.

 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
 4   New York, on the 21st day of April, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
 9            JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
10            MYRNA PÉREZ,
11                 Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13
14   ESMERALDO ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ
15   SURIEL, AKA ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ,
16   AKA MARCOS ANTONI, AKA GERALDO
17   RODRIGUEZ,
18            Petitioner,
19
20                      v.                                19-3422
21                                                        NAC
22   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
23   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
24            Respondent.
25   _____________________________________
26
27
 1   FOR PETITIONER:            Paul B. Grotas, Esq., New York,
 2                              NY.
 3

 4   FOR RESPONDENT:            Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy
 5                              Assistant Attorney General;
 6                              Jeffery R. Leist, Senior Litigation
 7                              Counsel; Kathleen Kelly Volkert,
 8                              Trial Attorney, Office of
 9                              Immigration Litigation, United
10                              States Department of Justice,
11                              Washington, DC.

12       UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

14   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

15   is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

16       Petitioner Esmeraldo Antonio Rodriguez Suriel, a native

17   and citizen of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of a

18   September 20, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a February

19   22, 2019 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied

20   his motion to reopen his withholding-only proceedings to seek

21   withholding of removal and protection under the Convention

22   Against Torture (“CAT”).   In re Rodriguez Suriel, No. A037

23   633 508 (B.I.A. Sept. 20, 2019), aff’g No. A037 633 508

24   (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Feb. 22, 2019).

25       Rodriguez Suriel was ordered removed in 2003, and that

26   2003 order was reinstated after his unlawful reentries in

                                   2
 1   2009 and 2017.         Following the 2017 entry he was referred to

 2   an IJ for withholding-only proceedings.                      He was removed again

 3   after the IJ and the BIA denied withholding of removal and

 4   CAT relief.          He again reentered and now challenges the

 5   agency’s denial of his motion to reopen his withholding-only

 6   proceedings.

7        Although the parties do not address jurisdiction, “we

8    have an independent obligation” to determine jurisdiction.

9    Zaluski      v.    INS,    37   F.3d    72,      73    (2d    Cir.   1994).        Our

10   jurisdiction in this context is limited to “final order[s] of

11   removal.”         8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).              A final order of removal

12   “conclud[es]        that    the    alien        is    deportable      or   order[s]

13   deportation.”         8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(A); Bhaktibhai-Patel

14   v. Garland, 32 F.4th 180, 189 (2d Cir. 2022) (removal orders

15   “affect the validity of the conclusion that an alien may or

16   must be removed from the United States” (internal quotation

17   marks and citation omitted)).                  Since the parties briefed this

18   case,   we    have    held      that   a   decision          in   withholding-only

19   proceedings is not such an order because it “concern[s] an

20   alien’s      eligibility        for    statutory         withholding       and     CAT

21   relief,”     it     “do[es]     not    determine        whether      the   alien   is

                                                3
 1   deportable or order deportation,” and it does not “affect the

 2   validity   of      any   determination       regarding       an     alien’s

 3   deportability or deportation . . . . Rather, if an immigration

 4   judge grants an application for withholding of removal, he

 5   prohibits DHS from removing the alien to a particular country,

 6   not from the United States.”            Bhaktibhai-Patel, 32 F.4th at

 7   190–91 (alterations adopted) (internal quotation marks and

 8   citations omitted).      Because Rodriguez Suriel challenges the

 9   denial of a request to reopen withholding-only proceedings,

10   we lack jurisdiction as the denial of reopening relates only

11   to   withholding    of   removal    and    CAT    relief   and     does   not

12   implicate removability.      See id.        The petition is otherwise

13   untimely   to   challenge     the    2003    removal       order    or    the

14   reinstatement of the order in 2017.              See id. at 191–93.

15        For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

16   DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.              All pending motions and

17   applications are DENIED and stays VACATED.

18                                      FOR THE COURT:
19                                      Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
20                                      Clerk of Court

                                         4