Gobind v. Sessions
679 F. App'x 31
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Pradeep Gobind, a citizen of Guyana, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after removal proceedings; IJ denied relief and the BIA affirmed.
- Gobind had been ordered removed in part based on an aggravated felony conviction.
- Gobind challenged the agency’s aggravated-felony determination and the denials of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
- The Second Circuit reviews both IJ and BIA decisions where appropriate and lacks jurisdiction to review certain removal orders based on aggravated felony convictions except for questions of law or constitutional claims.
- The agency concluded Gobind’s conviction qualified as an aggravated felony under precedent, that he failed to show persecution on account of a protected ground for withholding, and that he failed to show government involvement or acquiescence for CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gobind’s conviction is an aggravated felony | Conviction should not bar asylum/relief | Conviction qualifies as aggravated felony under BIA interpretation | Denied — conviction is an aggravated felony under Mugalli precedent |
| Whether denial of asylum was proper given aggravated-felony bar | Asylum denial improper despite conviction | Asylum barred by aggravated-felony conviction and controlling precedent | Denied — asylum challenge foreclosed by Mugalli; petition denied as to asylum |
| Whether withholding of removal denial raises reviewable legal or constitutional claim | Evidence and testimony met burden for withholding | Applicant failed to show harm was on account of a protected ground | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — no legal/constitutional challenge raised; determination waived |
| Whether CAT relief denial raises reviewable legal or constitutional claim | Evidence showed likelihood of torture | Applicant failed to show government infliction, consent, or acquiescence | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — no legal/constitutional challenge raised; determination waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing IJ and BIA decisions)
- Ortiz‑Franco v. Holder, 782 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2015) (jurisdictional limits on review of removal orders based on aggravated felonies)
- Vargas‑Sarmiento v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 448 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2006) (aggravated-felony determination presents question of law)
- Mugalli v. Ashcroft, 258 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2001) (conviction under NYPL §130.25(2) meets BIA’s interpretation of sexual abuse of a minor; constitutes aggravated felony)
- Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 1998) (issues not sufficiently argued are waived)