Brown v. Garland


19-1622 Brown v. Garland BIA A047 924 138 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 United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 17th day of October, two thousand twenty-two. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 8 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 SHAWN A. BROWN, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-1622 17 NAC 18 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Sarah T. Gillman, Gregory P. 24 Copeland, Rapid Defense Network, 25 New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 28 Attorney General; Keith I. 29 McManus, Assistant Director; 1 Rachel L. Browning, Trial 2 Attorney, Office of Immigration 3 Litigation, United States 4 Department of Justice, Washington, 5 DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioner Shawn A. Brown, a native and citizen of 12 Jamaica, seeks review of a May 24, 2019 decision of the BIA, 13 denying his motion to reopen. In re Shawn A. Brown, No. A047 14 924 138 (B.I.A. May 24, 2019). We assume the parties’ 15 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 16 Our jurisdiction to review a final order of removal, 17 including a denial of a motion to reopen, is limited when the 18 removal was for an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. 19 § 1252(a)(2)(C); Durant v. U.S. INS, 393 F.3d 113, 115 (2d 20 Cir. 2004). But we have jurisdiction to review the issues 21 raised here whether Brown established his prima facie 22 eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture 23 (“CAT”) in connection with his ineffective assistance of 24 counsel claim, and whether his removability is in question — 2 1 because they implicate constitutional claims or questions of 2 law, and because the jurisdictional limitation does not 3 extend to CAT claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); 4 Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1691 (2020) (holding that 5 the jurisdictional limitations to review of removal orders do 6 not apply to CAT orders given that CAT …

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