17‐284 Jobe v. Whitaker 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. 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 eighteen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges, EDWARD R. KORMAN,* District Judge. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐X MOMODOULAMIN JOBE, AKA MOMODOU LAMIN JOBE, AKA MOMODOU JOBE, Petitioner, Judge Edward R. Korman, of the United States District Court for the Eastern * District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 v. 17‐284 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐X FOR PETITIONER: Ari Holtzblatt, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC. FOR RESPONDENT: Laura M.L. Maroldy, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation (Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Brianne Whelan, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief), United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Momodoulamin Jobe, a native and citizen of Gambia, seeks review of a January 11, 2017, decision of the BIA dismissing his appeal of a July 13, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering his removal and finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal or a waiver of inadmissibility. In re Momodoulamin Jobe, No. A 096 502 313 (B.I.A. Jan. 11, 2017), aff’g No. A 096 502 313 (Immig. Ct. Hartford July 13, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review. Our jurisdiction is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law because Jobe was ordered removed on account of a controlled substance 2 conviction. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D). We review such questions de novo, Pierre v. Holder, 738 F.3d 39, 47 (2d Cir. 2013), but defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretations of ambiguous provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), see Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842‐43 (1984); Gill v. INS, 420 F.3d 82, 89 (2d Cir. 2005). Here, Jobe raises equal protection and due process claims based ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals