Taylor v. Sessions

15-3089 Taylor v. Sessions BIA A047 169 166 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 15th day of March, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges, LAWRENCE J. VILARDO, District Judge.1 _____________________________________ RANDOLF TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. 15-3089 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 1 Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo, of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, sitting by designation. Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Nancy E. Martin, Collins & Martin, P.C., Wethersfield, C.T. FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director; Dawn S. Conrad, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 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 Randolf Taylor (“petitioner” or “Taylor”), a native and citizen of Jamaica, seeks review of a September 2, 2015 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Randolph Taylor, No. A047 169 166 (B.I.A. Sept. 2, 2015). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the issues raised in the petition, and procedural history of the case. We generally lack jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to reopen filed by a petitioner, such as Taylor, who was ordered removed on the basis of a conviction for a controlled substance offense. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Durant v. INS, 393 F.3d 113, 115 (2d Cir. 2004). However, we have jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions of law,” which are subject to de novo review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). Whether Taylor’s 2007 Connecticut state court conviction for possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) remains valid for immigration purposes following his successful Connecticut state court Petition for Destruction of Record of Decriminalized Offense is a question of law over which we have jurisdiction. See Sutherland v. Holder, 769 F.3d 144, 146 (2d Cir. 2014). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, mindful that such motions are “‘disfavored.’” Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting ...

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