17-1471 Dziedziach v. Barr 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 31st day of March, two thousand twenty. Present: GUIDO CALABRESI, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges, _____________________________________ ROBERT DZIEDZIACH, Petitioner, v. 17-1471 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ For Petitioner: THOMAS E. MOSELEY, Newark, NJ. For Plaintiff-Appellee: TIMOTHY G. HAYES, Trial Attorney, Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision is GRANTED and the case is remanded to the agency. Robert Dziedziach, a native and citizen of Poland, seeks review of a May 1, 2017 decision of the BIA affirming a November 23, 2015 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering his removal for a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) and denying a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Robert Dziedziach, No. A096 627 384 (B.I.A. May 1, 2017), aff’g No. A096 627 384 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 23, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have considered the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review factual findings for substantial evidence and legal issues de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). I. Removability On appeal, Dziedziach argues that the agency erred in concluding that he was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) provides that an alien is removable if he is “convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years . . . after the date of admission, . . . for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed.” Dziedziach was convicted in 2012, pursuant to a guilty plea, of conspiracy to retaliate against a witness in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(b). The underlying criminal conduct of this conspiracy took place between April 2006 and September 2008 and involved Dziedziach and others hiring individuals ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals