19-1750 Morgan v. Garland BIA Mulligan, IJ A055 563 276 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 7th day of February, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 STEPHEN ALPHANSO MORGAN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-1750 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Kai W. De Graaf, Esq., Ada, MI. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Erica B. Miles, 28 Senior Litigation Counsel; Craig 1 A. Newell, Jr., Trial Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC.

5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

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

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

8 is DENIED.

9 Petitioner Stephen Alphanso Morgan, a native and citizen

10 of Jamaica, seeks review of a May 31, 2019 decision of the

11 BIA affirming a December 18, 2018 decision of an Immigration

12 Judge (“IJ”) ordering Morgan’s removal for an aggravated

13 felony crime of violence and denying relief from removal under

14 the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Stephen

15 Alphanso Morgan, No. A 055 563 276 (B.I.A. May 31, 2019),

16 aff’g No. A 055 563 276 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 18, 2018).

17 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

18 and procedural history.

19 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions

20 “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of

21 Homeland Sec.,

(2d Cir. 2006). We review

22 de novo whether a conviction is an aggravated felony.

23 Martinez v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2008). We

2 1 review factual challenges to the agency’s denial of CAT relief

2 under the substantial evidence standard. See Nasrallah v.

3 Barr,

(2020).

4 The agency ordered Morgan removed for an aggravated

5 felony and specifically that his assault conviction under New

6 York Penal Law 120.05(2) is a crime of violence. Morgan’s

7 challenge to that determination is foreclosed by Singh v.

8 Barr, which holds that § 120.05(2) is categorically a crime

9 of violence.

, 462–64 (2d Cir. 2019). “In the

10 absence of any decisions by the Supreme Court or our own court

11 . . . that would cast doubt on [a decision’s] viability, . .

12 . a panel of this court will not overturn a . . . decision of

13 another panel, rendered after full consideration of the very

14 point at issue.” Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp.,

(2d Cir. 1980).

16 Moreover, we find no error in the agency’s denial of CAT

17 relief. Morgan alleges that he is at risk of torture because

18 he was a member of the Jamaica Labor Party and members of a

19 rival party shot at him when he visited Jamaica in 2007.

20 But more than 13 years have passed since Morgan was last in

21 Jamaica, Morgan has not received any threats since the 2007

3 1 shooting, and his party is now in control of the government.

2 Thus, the BIA’s determination that petitioner failed to

3 establish that he would more likely than not be tortured by,

4 at the instigation of, with the consent of, or with the

5 acquiescence of a public official upon his return to Jamaica

6 is supported by substantial evidence. To the extent Morgan

7 argues that Jamaica’s generally high level of political

8 violence poses a threat to him, evidence of general political

9 violence, without more, is insufficient to show that Morgan

10 will likely be tortured. See Mu-Xing Wang v. Ashcroft, 320

, 144 (2d Cir. 2003) (requiring petitioners to provide

12 particularized evidence that they will more likely than not

13 be tortured in order to support a CAT claim).

14 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

15 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

16 stays VACATED.

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

4