17-3202 Mohammed 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 24th day of January, two thousand nineteen. Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________________________ KAREEM FAREED MOHAMMED, Petitioner, v. 17-3202 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________________________ Appearing for Petitioner: Luis Cortes Romero, Immigrant Advocacy & Litigation Center, PLLC (Nicholas J. Phillips, Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York, on the brief), Kent, WA. Appearing for Respondent: David H. Wetmore, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice (Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, John Hogan, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Lindsay C. Dunn, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, on the brief), Washington, D.C. ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) be and hereby is DENIED. Petitioner Kareem Fareed Mohammed, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, seeks review of a September 6, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming a May 9, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering his removal. In re Kareem Fareed Mohammed, No. A204 048 634 (B.I.A. Sept. 6, 2017), aff’g No. A204-048-634 (Immig. Ct. Napanoch May 9, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review. Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). Mohammed’s convictions limit our review to “constitutional claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(C), (D). His statutory eligibility for a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) is a question of law that we review de novo. See Husic v. Holder, 776 F.3d 59, 61 & n.2 (2d Cir. 2015). Mohammed was a conditional resident whose lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) status terminated in 2016 when U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied his petition to remove the conditions on his residence. He argues that the BIA and IJ erred when they concluded that he was ineligible to apply for a waiver of inadmissibility in connection with his renewed petition to remove conditions before the IJ. Section 1182(h) provides ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals