17-726 Thompson v. Whitaker BIA Renner, IJ A099 113 000 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 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 18th day of December, two thousand 5 eighteen. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 DENNIS JACOBS, 9 ROBERT D. SACK, 10 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 ORA CLEMENTINE THOMPSON, AKA 15 ABRIANNA R. TINGLE, AKA ORA 16 THOMPSON, 17 Petitioner, 18 19 v. 17-726 20 NAC 21 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 22 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Nicholas J. Mundy, Brooklyn, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 29 Attorney General; M. Jocelyn Lopez 30 Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel; 31 Anna Juarez, Trial Attorney, 32 Office of Immigration Litigation, 1 United States Department of 2 Justice, Washington, DC. 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 5 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 6 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 7 is DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART. 8 Petitioner Ora Clementine Thompson, a native and citizen 9 of Dominica, seeks review of a February 24, 2017, decision of 10 the BIA affirming an October 4, 2016, decision of an 11 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Thompson’s application for 12 withholding of removal and relief under the Convention 13 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Ora Clementine Thompson, No. 14 A 099 113 000 (B.I.A. Feb. 24, 2017), aff’g No. A 099 113 000 15 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 4, 2016). We assume the parties’ 16 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 17 in this case. 18 Because Thompson’s removal order is based on criminal 19 convictions, including an aggravated felony and controlled 20 substance offense, our jurisdiction is limited to 21 “constitutional claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. 22 § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D). We review any such claims de novo. 23 Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). We have 24 reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 2 1 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 2 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). 3 Removability 4 Thompson argues that her order of removal should be 5 vacated because ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals