17-1013 Hamilton v. Whitaker BIA Clemente, IJ A074 986 838 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 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 9 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 IAN D. HAMILTON, AKA UNCLE 14 UNKNOWN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 17-1013 18 NAC 19 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Thomas H. Nooter, Freeman Nooter 25 & Ginsberg, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Douglas E. 29 Ginsburg, Assistant Director; Erik 30 R. Quick, Trial Attorney, Office 31 of Immigration Litigation, United 32 States Department of Justice, 33 Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is GRANTED. 5 Petitioner Ian D. Hamilton, a native and citizen of 6 Jamaica, seeks review of an April 5, 2017, decision of the 7 BIA affirming a November 9, 2016, decision of an Immigration 8 Judge (“IJ”) denying Hamilton’s application for deferral of 9 removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re 10 Ian D. Hamilton, No. A 074 986 838 (B.I.A. Apr. 5, 2017), 11 aff’g No. A 074 986 838 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 9, 2016). 12 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 13 and procedural history in this case, which we include only as 14 necessary to explain our decision to grant the petition for 15 review. 16 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 17 both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 18 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 19 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We assume Hamilton’s 20 credibility because neither the IJ nor the BIA discussed 21 credibility at any point. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) 2 1 (“[I]f no adverse credibility determination is explicitly 2 made, the applicant or witness shall have a rebuttable 3 presumption of credibility on appeal.”). Hamilton’s 4 convictions limit our review to constitutional claims ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals