Kerr v. Garland

21-6504 Kerr v. Garland 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. 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 17th day of January, two thousand twenty-three. PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ KADEEN KAMAR KERR, Petitioner, v. 21-6504 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: ROHMAH A. JAVED, Esq. (John H. Peng, on the brief), for Karen Murtagh, Executive Director, Prisoners’ Legal Services of New York, Albany, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: IMRAN R. ZAIDI, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation (Jennifer J. Kenney, Assistant Director; Lindsay B. Glauner, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief), for Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, 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 Kadeen Kamar Kerr, a native and citizen of Jamaica, seeks review of an August 27, 2021 decision of the BIA, affirming a December 15, 2020 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which ordered his removal to Jamaica. In re Kadeen Kamar Kerr, No. A058 826 330 (B.I.A. Aug. 27, 2021), aff’g No. A058 826 330 (Immigr. Ct. Napanoch Dec. 15, 2020). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal, which we refer to only as necessary to explain our decision. We have reviewed the decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Matthews v. Barr, 927 F.3d 606, 612 (2d Cir. 2019). We defer to the agency’s definition of “crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), see Matthews, 927 F.3d at 616, but review de novo whether Kerr’s conviction for endangering the welfare of a child in violation of New York Penal Law (“NYPL”) § 260.10(1) satisfies that definition, see Vasconcelos v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 2016) (“Our consideration of questions of law and the application of law to undisputed facts is de novo.”); Vargas-Sarmiento v. U.S. Dep’t of 2 Just., 448 F.3d 159, 164 (2d Cir. 2006) (“We review the BIA’s interpretation of state or federal criminal laws de novo.”). As we have explained, “[t]o …

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