18-3190-ag Smith v. Barr BIA Tsankov, IJ A 041 307 913 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 18th day of June, two thousand twenty. Present: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, MICHAEL H. PARK, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ LINCOLN JUNIOR SMITH, Petitioner, v. 18-3190-ag WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ For Petitioner: JORDAN R. DUVAL and TIMOTHY J. PROFETA, Rule 46.1(e) Law Students, supervised by Jonathan Romberg, Esq., Center for Social Justice, Seton Hall University School of Law, Newark, NJ. For Respondent: CRAIG A. NEWELL, JR., Trial Attorney (Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Erica B. Miles, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief), 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 GRANTED, the BIA’s decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this order. Petitioner Lincoln Junior Smith, a native and citizen of Jamaica, seeks review of an October 2, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming an April 30, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). In re Smith, No. A 041 307 913 (B.I.A. Oct. 2, 2018), aff’g No. A 041 307 913 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 30, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Because Smith conceded removability and was ordered removed for a controlled substance offense, our jurisdiction is limited to “constitutional claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D). Smith challenges the agency’s determinations that certain of his past convictions were aggravated felonies and thus raises a question of law that we review de novo. See Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). Cancellation of removal is a discretionary form of relief that requires five years of lawful permanent resident status, seven continuous years of lawful residence in the United States, and no aggravated felony ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals