16‐775 Richards v. Sessions BIA Mulligan, IJ A038 738 677 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 16th day of October, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, DENNIS JACOBS, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ANDERSON NEIL RICHARDS, AKA ANDERSON RICHARDS, Petitioner, v. 16‐775 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: William M. Jay, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC; David J. Zimmer, Goodwin Procter LLP, San Francisco, CA. FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director; Karen L. Melnik, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. FOR AMICI CURIAE: Andrew Wachtenheim, Immigrant Defense Project, New York, NY. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. Petitioner Anderson Neil Richards, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, seeks review of a June 20, 2014 decision of the BIA remanding to permit the Government to submit the plea transcript from Richards’ underlying conviction, and a February 22, 2016 decision of the BIA affirming an order of removal entered by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). In re Anderson Neil Richards, No. A038 738 677 (B.I.A. June 20, 2014, Feb. 22, 2016), aff’g No. A038 738 677 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 22, 2014, Dec. 2, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). The applicable standards of review are well established. Maghradze v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 150, 152‐53 (2d Cir. 2006). 2 I. Background The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) charged Richards as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) for having been convicted of a crime of child abuse based on his conviction for endangering the welfare of a child in violation of New York Penal Law (“NYPL”) § 260.10. DHS alleged that Richards’ conviction was under subsection 1 of NYPL § 260.10, and as evidence of that conviction, it initially submitted a misdemeanor ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals