17-3482 Parris v. Whitaker BIA Montante, IJ A030 829 477 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 19th day of December, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ LAWRENCE PARRIS, Petitioner, v. 17-3482 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Stephen K. Tills, Orchard Park, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Brianne Whelan Cohen, Senior Litigation Counsel; Robbin K. Blaya, Trial Attorney, 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 is DENIED. Petitioner Lawrence Parris, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, seeks review of a September 29, 2017 decision of the BIA affirming a December 12, 2013 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering Parris’s removal, and finding him ineligible for relief therefrom. In re Lawrence Parris, No. A 030 829 477 (B.I.A. Sept. 29, 2017), aff’g No. A 030 829 477 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Dec. 12, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Although our review is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D), Parris’s removability and statutory eligibility for relief from removal are questions of law that we review de novo, Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). In 1994, Parris was convicted of first-degree robbery under New York Penal Law (“NYPL”) § 160.15(3) and sentenced to three to nine years’ imprisonment. After serving his term of imprisonment, Parris began a career as an airplane mechanic. In 2003, he was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1036 of entering or attempting to enter 2 the secure area of an airport by fraud or false pretenses, specifically, lying about his robbery conviction, and was sentenced to one year of probation. In 2008, on returning from abroad, Parris was placed in removal proceedings based on his criminal convictions, both ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals