18-3612 Kohn v. Barr BIA Sagerman, IJ A208 910 337 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 13th day of May, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ DOVID KOHN, AKA AVRAHAM PERL, AKA ABRHAM PERL, AKA ABRHAM PERL KOHN, Petitioner, v. 18-3612 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Thomas E. Moseley, Newark, NJ. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director; Robert D. Tennyson, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, 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 Dovid Kohn, a native and citizen of Israel, seeks review of a November 8, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming a May 8, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering his removal. In re Dovid Kohn, No. A 208 910 337 (B.I.A. Nov. 8, 2018), aff’g No. A 208 910 337 (Immig. Ct. Napanoch N.Y. May 8, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Under the circumstances of this 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 constitutional claims and questions of law de novo. See Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). I. The Agency’s Jurisdiction In Pereira v. Sessions, the Supreme Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires a notice to appear to include a hearing time and place to trigger the “stop-time rule,” 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2113–20 (2018), which cuts off an alien’s accrual of physical presence or residence for the purposes of qualifying for cancellation of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a), (b), (d)(1). Kohn did not apply for cancellation of removal, and the stop-time 2 rule had no bearing on this case; nevertheless, Kohn argues that Pereira requires us to conclude that his notice to appear was insufficient to vest the immigration court with jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because it did not specify the time and place of his hearing. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals