Alexander v. Whitaker

16-4003 Alexander v. Whitaker BIA Kolbe, IJ A046 032 100 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 8th day of January, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 9 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ERRON LENNON ALEXANDER, AKA 14 EVVON L. ALEXANDER, AKA ERIN 15 ALEXANDER, AKA ALEXANDER ERRON, 16 AKA ERIC ALEXANDER, 17 Petitioner, 18 19 v. 16-4003 20 NAC 21 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 22 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 23 Respondent. 24 _____________________________________ 25 26 FOR PETITIONER: Nicholas J. Phillips, Prisoners’ 27 Legal Services of New York, 28 Albany, NY. 29 30 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 31 Attorney General; Douglas E. 32 Ginsburg, Assistant Director, 33 Briena L. Strippoli, Senior 1 Litigation Counsel, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is GRANTED. 10 Petitioner Erron Lennon Alexander, a native and citizen 11 of Trinidad and Tobago, seeks review of a November 2, 2016 12 decision of the BIA affirming a June 22, 2016 decision of an 13 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Alexander’s application for 14 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 15 Erron Lennon Alexander, No. A 046 032 100 (B.I.A. Nov. 2, 16 2016), aff’g No. A 046 032 100 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 22, 17 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 18 facts and procedural history in this case. 19 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the IJ’s 20 decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., minus any basis for 21 denying relief that the BIA declined to consider. See Xue 22 Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d 23 Cir. 2005). Because Alexander’s removal order is based on 24 criminal convictions, including convictions for an aggravated 2 1 felony and a controlled substance offense, our jurisdiction 2 is limited to considering “constitutional claims or questions 3 of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D). For jurisdiction ...

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