Lozano v. Sessions

17-422 Lozano v. Sessions BIA Sagerman, IJ A013 877 563 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 11th day of December, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, REENA RAGGI, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JAIME DANIEL LOZANO, AKA JAMES KOTCH, AKA JAMES LOZANO, AKA JAMIE LAZANO, Petitioner, v. 17-422 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Jaime Daniel Lozano, pro se, Cape Vincent, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director; Lindsay B. Glauner, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, 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 Jaime Daniel Lozano, a native and citizen of Colombia, seeks review of a January 11, 2017, decision of the BIA affirming an August 22, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering Lozano removed to Colombia. In re Jaime Daniel Lozano, No. A 013 877 563 (B.I.A. Jan. 11, 2017), aff’g No. A 013 877 563 (Immig. Ct. Napanoch Aug. 22, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We deny the petition on the ground that an alien is removable if he has been “convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude” (“CIMT”). 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). Lozano has been convicted of three such crimes: (1) third-degree robbery under New York Penal Law (“NYPL”) § 160.05 in 1978; (2) attempted third-degree robbery under NYPL §§ 110, 160.05 in 2008; and (3) promoting the sexual performance of a child under NYPL § 263.15 in 2015. He does not dispute that all three of these crimes are CIMTs. Lozano argues that, as a matter of res judicata, neither of his robbery convictions may be used to charge him as removable for two CIMTs because, in a prior removal proceeding in 2011, he was charged as removable on the ground that those ...

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