19-3742 Davidson v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A043 220 267 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 6th day of July, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 JON O. NEWMAN, 10 GERARD E. LYNCH, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 LIONEL DENZEL DAVIDSON, AKA 15 LEONARD DAVIS, 16 Petitioner, 17 18 v. 19-3742 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Suchita D. Mathur, The Bronx 26 Defenders, Bronx, NY; Sean M. 27 Topping, Norton Rose Fulbright US 28 LLP, New York, NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Anthony C. 3 Payne, Assistant Director; Jeffery 4 R. Leist, Senior Litigation 5 Counsel; Abigail E. Leach, Trial 6 Attorney; Office of Immigration 7 Litigation, United States 8 Department of Justice, Washington, 9 DC. 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 13 is DISMISSED. 14 Petitioner Lionel Denzel Davidson, a native and citizen 15 of Jamaica, seeks review of an October 30, 2019, decision of 16 the BIA affirming a May 10, 2019, decision of an Immigration 17 Judge (“IJ”) denying Davidson’s application for withholding 18 of removal and protection under the Convention Against 19 Torture (“CAT”) following his reentry without permission and 20 reinstatement of his 2008 removal order. In re Lionel Denzel 21 Davidson, No. A043 220 267 (B.I.A. Oct. 30, 2019), aff’g No. 22 A043 220 267 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 10, 2019). We assume 23 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 24 procedural history. 25 Although neither Davidson nor the Government challenges 26 our jurisdiction, “federal courts have an independent 2 1 obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of 2 their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide 3 jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or 4 elect not to press.” Bhaktibhai-Patel v. Garland, 32 F.4th 5 180, 187 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting Henderson ex rel. Henderson 6 v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011)). Our jurisdiction is 7 limited …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals