Taylor v. Holder

10-5113-ag Taylor v. Holder BIA Laforest, IJ A091 985 458 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 Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 16th day of February, two thousand twelve. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 Chief Judge, 9 RALPH K. WINTER, 10 REENA RAGGI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 Lawrence Arthur Taylor, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 10-5113-ag 18 19 Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States 20 Attorney General, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Lawrence Arthur Taylor, pro se, New 25 York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Kathryn M. McKinney (Stephen J. 28 Flynn, Assistant Director), Office 29 of Immigration Litigation, Civil 1 Division, U.S. Department of 2 Justice, Washington, D.C., for Tony 3 West, Assistant Attorney General 4 5 Petition for review from a decision of the Board of 6 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). 7 8 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 9 AND DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED, in 10 part, and DENIED, in part. 11 12 Lawrence Arthur Taylor, a native and citizen of 13 Jamaica, petitions for review of the BIA decision affirming 14 the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), finding him 15 removable due to a conviction for a controlled-substance 16 offense, Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) 17 § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). See 18 In re Lawrence Arthur Taylor, No. A091 985 458 (B.I.A. Nov. 19 19, 2010), aff’g No. A091 985 458 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 20 Sept. 17, 2009). 21 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decision. See 22 Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008) (per 23 curiam). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 24 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 25 presented for review. 2 1 [1] We lack jurisdiction to consider a petition for review 2 of “any final order of removal against an alien who is 3 removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense 4 covered in section 1182(a)(2),” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), 5 unless the petition raises “constitutional claims or 6 questions of law,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), that are 7 “colorable,” see Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 40 8 (2d Cir. 2008). Taylor was found removable under 8 U.S.C. 9 § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), and his petition fails to raise a 10 colorable constitutional claim or question of law. 11 [2] Taylor’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 12 fails for lack of any compliance with the procedure for 13 raising such a claim provided in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & 14 N. Dec. 637, 639 (B.I.A. 1988). Although we do not require 15 “slavish adherence” with that procedure, we do require, at 16 minimum, “substantial compliance” with that procedure, Yang 17 v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 133, 142-43 (2d Cir. 2007). 18 In any event, Taylor’s counsel was not ineffective. 19 Taylor must establish that he suffered prejudice from his 20 counsel’s concession that his conviction was a controlled 21 substance offense. See Cekic v. I.N.S., 435 F.3d 167, 171 22 (2d Cir. 2006). An alien is inadmissible if he was 23 convicted of “a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to 24 violate) a[] law or regulation of a [s]tate . . . relat[ed] 3 1 to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of 2 Title 21).” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II); see also 21 3 U.S.C. § 812(c), Schedule I(c)(10) (listing marijuana as a 4 Schedule I narcotic). Taylor was convicted of “knowingly . 5 . . [p]ossess[ing] marijuana for sale” under Ariz. Rev. 6 Stat. § 13-3405 -- a crime related to a controlled 7 substance. 8 9 Finding no merit in Taylor’s remaining arguments, we 10 hereby DISMISS, in part, and DENY, in part, Taylor’s 11 petition for review. 12 13 FOR THE COURT: 14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 15 16 4