18-1764 Pamphile v. Garland BIA Mulligan, IJ A200 461 606 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 May, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, DENNY CHIN, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JAMES PAMPHILE, Petitioner, v. 18-1764 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Gary J. Mennitt, Deborah Kemi Martin, Dechert LLP, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Leslie McCay, Senior Litigation Counsel; Colin J. Tucker, 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 James Pamphile, a native and citizen of Haiti, seeks review of a May 15, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming a September 12, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Pamphile’s application for withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re James Pamphile, No. A 200 461 606 (B.I.A. May 15, 2018), aff’g No. A 200 461 606 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 12, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having 2 committed a criminal offense covered in section . . . 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii),” that is, an aggravated felony as set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43). See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). This “criminal alien bar,” Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 2004), applies here because Pamphile was ordered removed for aggravated felonies. Accordingly, our review of his removal order is limited to “constitutional claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). However, this jurisdictional limitation does not apply to our review of CAT claims. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1690, 1692 1694 (2020). We have previously held …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals