20-1537 Roche v. Garland BIA A091 479 159 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. 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 25th day of October, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 EUNICE C. LEE, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 GUETARY ROCHE, AKA GUETHARI 15 ROACH, AKA EUETARY ROCHE, AKA 16 GUITERO ROACH, AKA GUIDO ROCHE, 17 AKA GUDO ROK, AKA GUY ROACH, 18 Petitioner, 19 20 v. 20-1537 21 NAC 22 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 23 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 24 Respondent. 25 _____________________________________ 26 27 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas E. Moseley, Esq., Newark, 28 NJ. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Mary Jane 3 Candaux, Assistant Director; 4 Stephen Finn, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, DC. 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 9 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 10 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 11 is DISMISSED. 12 Petitioner Guetary Roche, a native and citizen of Haiti, 13 seeks review of an April 13, 2020 decision of the BIA denying 14 his third motion to reopen. In re Guetary Roche, No. A 091 15 479 159 (B.I.A. Apr. 13, 2020). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 17 In 1997, the BIA affirmed an immigration judge’s decision 18 ordering Roche deported for overstaying a visa and for an 19 aggravated felony based on a 1994 New York conviction for 20 first-degree assault. The agency found Roche ineligible to 21 apply to adjust status given a 1990 Florida conviction for 22 cocaine possession. Roche filed his third motion to reopen 23 in 2020 based on a Florida court’s 2018 vacatur of the 24 possession conviction. We dismiss his petition for lack of 25 jurisdiction. 2 1 As an initial matter, because Roche was ordered removed 2 for an aggravated felony, our review is limited to 3 constitutional claims and questions of law. See 4 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); Durant v. I.N.S., 393 F.3d 5 113, 115 (2d Cir. 2004). We review such claims de novo. 6 Pierre v. Holder, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals