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 4 New York, on the 15th 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, 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.,

(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

(a)(2)(C), (D); see

24 also Ortiz-Franco v. Holder,

(2d Cir. 2015).

2 1 We review such claims de novo. Pierre v. Gonzales,

(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,

,

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

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

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 3 1 his conviction in state court because his conviction is final

2 for immigration purposes, see Montilla v. INS,

,

3 164 (2d Cir. 1991); Matter of J.M. Acosta,

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

, 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. 4