19-3742
Davidson v. Garland
BIA
Conroy, IJ
A043 220 267
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 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 6th day of July, two thousand twenty-two.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,
8 Chief Judge,
9 JON O. NEWMAN,
10 GERARD E. LYNCH,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 LIONEL DENZEL DAVIDSON, AKA
15 LEONARD DAVIS,
16 Petitioner,
17
18 v. 19-3742
19 NAC
20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 _____________________________________
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Suchita D. Mathur, The Bronx
26 Defenders, Bronx, NY; Sean M.
27 Topping, Norton Rose Fulbright US
28 LLP, New York, NY.
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant
2 Attorney General; Anthony C.
3 Payne, Assistant Director; Jeffery
4 R. Leist, Senior Litigation
5 Counsel; Abigail E. Leach, Trial
6 Attorney; Office of Immigration
7 Litigation, United States
8 Department of Justice, Washington,
9 DC.
10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
13 is DISMISSED.
14 Petitioner Lionel Denzel Davidson, a native and citizen
15 of Jamaica, seeks review of an October 30, 2019, decision of
16 the BIA affirming a May 10, 2019, decision of an Immigration
17 Judge (“IJ”) denying Davidson’s application for withholding
18 of removal and protection under the Convention Against
19 Torture (“CAT”) following his reentry without permission and
20 reinstatement of his 2008 removal order. In re Lionel Denzel
21 Davidson, No. A043 220 267 (B.I.A. Oct. 30, 2019), aff’g No.
22 A043 220 267 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City May 10, 2019). We assume
23 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and
24 procedural history.
25 Although neither Davidson nor the Government challenges
26 our jurisdiction, “federal courts have an independent
2
1 obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of
2 their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide
3 jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or
4 elect not to press.” Bhaktibhai-Patel v. Garland, 32 F.4th
5 180, 187 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting Henderson ex rel. Henderson
6 v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011)). Our jurisdiction is
7 limited to review of petitions for review filed within 30
8 days of a “final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1),
9 (b)(1).
10 We lack jurisdiction here. Davidson’s November 2019
11 petition for review is not timely from his 2008 removal order
12 or the Department of Homeland Security’s September 2018
13 reinstatement of that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1);
14 Bhaktibhai-Patel, 32 F.4th at 190–91; see also Luna v. Holder,
15 637 F.3d 85, 92 (2d Cir. 2011) (“Th[e] 30–day filing
16 requirement is jurisdictional and is not subject to equitable
17 tolling.” (quotation marks omitted)). The BIA’s October 2019
18 decision affirming the IJ’s denial of relief in withholding-
19 only proceedings does not constitute a final order of removal
20 because it does “not determine whether the alien is deportable
21 or order[] deportation,” or “affect the validity of any
3
1 determination regarding an alien’s deportability or
2 deportation.” Bhaktibhai-Patel, 32 F.4th at 190 (quotation
3 marks omitted). Accordingly, there is no timely petition
4 challenging a “final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C.
5 § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1).
6 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
7 DISMISSED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED
8 and stays VACATED.
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
11 Clerk of Court
12
4