Richmond v. Sessions

16-2813 Richmond v. Sessions 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 for the Second Circuit, held at the 2 Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 3 27th day of September, two thousand seventeen. 4 5 Present: JON O. NEWMAN, 6 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 8 Circuit Judges. 9 _____________________________________ 10 11 KEON RICHMOND, AKA KIEON RICHMOND, 12 AKA KEION RICHMOND, AKA KEION 13 RICHMAN, 14 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 16-2813-ag 18 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 26 Appearing for Petitioner: Thomas E. Moseley, Law Offices of Thomas E. Moseley, Newark, 27 NJ. 28 29 Appearing for Respondent: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Paul Fiorino, 30 Senior Litigation Counsel; Katherine A. Smith, Trial Attorney, 31 Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of 32 Justice, Washington, DC. 33 34 35 1 Petition to review an order of the United States Board of Immigration Appeals. 2 3 4 ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 5 AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 6 7 Keon Richmond appeals from the July 28, 2016 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals 8 determining that his misrepresentation about his immigration status to United States Immigration 9 and Customs Enforcement officers for the purpose of avoiding removal amounted to a violation of 10 Section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 11 § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I)), which prohibits non-citizens from falsely representing themselves as 12 citizens “for any purpose or benefit under” that statute. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 13 underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review. 14 15 The BIA’s interpretations of the INA receive the deference given to every administrative 16 agency in accordance with Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 17 U.S. 837 (1984); Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64, 68 (2d Cir. 2011). Under Chevron, we 18 first ask whether the statute at issue is ambiguous: if not, we rely on its clear meaning; if so, we 19 defer to an agency’s interpretation so long as it is “reasonable, and not arbitrary, capricious, or 20 manifestly contrary to the statute.” Adams v. Holder, 692 F.3d 91, 95 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal 21 quotation marks ...

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