Hammond v. Sessions

16-3013 Hammond v. Sessions BIA A037 215 537 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 29th day of January, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 Chief Judge, 9 REENA RAGGI, 10 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 MICHAEL NOEL ANTHONY HAMMOND, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-3013 18 NAC 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Michael Noel Anthony Hammond, pro 25 se. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Stephen J. 29 Flynn, Assistant Director; Robert 30 Michael Stalzer, Trial Attorney, 31 Office of Immigration Litigation, 32 United States Department of 33 Justice, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is DENIED. 5 Petitioner Michael Noel Anthony Hammond, a native and 6 citizen of Jamaica, seeks review of a July 25, 2016 7 decision of the BIA denying his June 2016 motion to 8 reconsider his 2003 removal order. In re Michael Noel 9 Anthony Hammond, No. A037 215 537 (B.I.A. July 25, 2016). 10 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 11 facts and procedural history in this case. 12 A motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of 13 the challenged order. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(A)-(B); 8 14 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b). It is undisputed that Hammond’s June 15 2016 motion to reconsider was untimely because his removal 16 order became final in 2003, 13 years earlier. 8 U.S.C. 17 § 1229a(c)(6)(B). Here, reconsideration was available only 18 under the BIA’s sua sponte authority. 8 C.F.R. § 19 1003.2(a). Despite this procedural posture, we retain 20 jurisdiction to review Hammond’s U.S. citizenship claim. 21 Duarte-Ceri v. Holder, 630 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 2010). We 2 1 review the derivative citizenship claim de novo, deferring 2 to the BIA’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous 3 provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). 4 Brissett v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 130, 133 (2d Cir. 2004); see 5 also Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, ...

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