Dennis v. Sessions

15-2973 Dennis v. Sessions BIA Straus, IJ A040 087 088 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. 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 26th day of February, two thousand 5 eighteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 PETER W. HALL, 10 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 BALTIMORE BARNETT DENNIS, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 15-2973 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Elyssa N. Williams, Formica 25 Williams, P.C., New Haven, CT. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal 28 Deputy Assistant Attorney General; 29 Terri J. Scadron, Assistant 30 Director; Margot L. Carter, Trial 31 Attorney, Office of Immigration 32 Litigation, United States 1 Department of Justice, Washington, 2 DC. 3 4 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Baltimore Barnett Dennis, a native and citizen 10 of Jamaica, seeks review of a September 8, 2015, decision of 11 the BIA, affirming a May 27, 2015, decision of an Immigration 12 Judge (“IJ”) denying Dennis’s application for withholding of 13 removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and 14 the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Baltimore 15 Barnett Dennis, No. A040 087 088 (B.I.A. Sept. 8, 2015), aff’g 16 No. A040 087 088 (Immig. Ct. Hartford May 27, 2015). We 17 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and 18 procedural history in this case. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 20 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 21 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 22 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). Dennis’s underlying 23 controlled substance offense conviction limits our 2 1 jurisdiction to constitutional claims and questions of law. 2 See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(C), (D), 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). 3 Whether an alien has been convicted of a particularly 4 serious crime is a question of law over which we have 5 jurisdiction. See Nethagani v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 150, 154- 6 55 (2d Cir. 2008). 7 An alien is barred from ...

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