Rodden v. Wilkinson


19-3565 Rodden v. Wilkinson BIA Brennan, IJ A042 782 847 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 12th day of February, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, PIERRE N. LEVAL, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JOHN RODDEN, Petitioner, v. 19-3565 ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, ∗ Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: NIALL MACGIOLLABHUÍ, Esq., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: WILLIAM C. MINICK, Attorney, (Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, on the brief) for Ethan P. Davis, Acting ∗ Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Robert M. Wilkinson is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen as Respondent. Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; 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 John Rodden, a native and citizen of Ireland, seeks review of a 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that ordered his removal and found him ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). In re John Rodden, No. A042 782 847 (B.I.A. Sept. 30, 2019), aff’g No. A042 782 847 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 8, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision denying the petition. “[W]e review the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA.” Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007). Because Rodden was ordered removed for a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), our jurisdiction is limited to review of constitutional claims and questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D). The Attorney General has discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) to waive certain grounds of inadmissibility. An alien who has 2 been convicted of an aggravated felony after having been admitted for lawful permanent residence in the United States is ineligible, however, for such a waiver. Id. In 2009, Rodden pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit “any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States,” ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals