21-6391 Sahin v. Garland 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. 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 21st day of December, two thousand twenty-two. Present: GUIDO CALABRESI, GERARD E. LYNCH, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ERDAL SAHIN, Petitioner, v. 21-6391-ag MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ For Petitioner: JUSTIN CONLON, Law Offices of Justin Conlon, Hartford, CT For Respondent: JACLYN E. SHEA, Trial Attorney (Rebekah Nahas, Lindsay Glauner, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief) for Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Erdal Sahin, a native and citizen of Turkey, seeks review of a July 7, 2021, decision of the BIA affirming a February 3, 2021, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering his removal. In re Erdal Sahin, No. 044 951 067 (B.I.A. July 7, 2021), aff’g No. A044 951 067 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Feb. 3, 2021). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the case. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review de novo the sole question presented here: whether Sahin’s 2005 conviction for sexual assault in the third degree in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-72a(a) (2002) is categorically a conviction for an aggravated felony crime of violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). See Akinsade v. Holder, 678 F.3d 138, 143 (2d Cir. 2012). Section 1101(a)(43)(F) defines an aggravated felony, in relevant part, as a “crime of violence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). In turn, a crime of violence is “an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). On January 10, 2005, Sahin pleaded nolo contendere and was convicted under Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-72a(a). At the relevant time, this statute read as follows: (a) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the third degree when such person (1) compels another person to submit to sexual contact (A) by the use of force …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals