Young v. Sessions

17-49 Young v. Sessions BIA Mulligan, IJ A058 779 326 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 27th day of March, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, PETER W. HALL, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ MARLON EVERTON YOUNG, Petitioner, v. 17-49 NAC JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Pankaj Malik, Forest Hills, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel; Allison Frayer, 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 for review is DENIED. Petitioner Marlon Everton Young, a native and citizen of Jamaica, seeks review of a December 8, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a July 25, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Young’s application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Marlon Everton Young, No. A 058 779 326 (B.I.A. Dec. 8, 2016), aff’g No. A 058 779 326 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 25, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007). Young’s aggravated felony ground of removal limits our review to constitutional claims and questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); Ortiz-Franco v. Holder, 782 F.3d 81, 90 (2d Cir. 2015). Moreover, because Young was convicted of an aggravated felony and sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment for that crime, the conviction made him ineligible for withholding of removal as a matter of law. 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1231(b)(3)(B) (providing that particularly serious crime bars withholding of removal and defining particularly serious crime as “an aggravated felony (or felonies) for which the alien has been sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of at least 5 years”). To the extent Young argues that he should be allowed to provide evidence of his innocence, he cannot do so in removal proceedings or in a petition for review in this Court. See Lanferman ...

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