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.**  

### At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 1 

### for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 2 

### United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 3 

### New York, on the 16 **th**

### day of February, two thousand twelve. 4 5 

### PRESENT: 6 

### DENNIS JACOBS, 7 

### Chief Judge **,** 8 

### RALPH K. WINTER, 9 

### REENA RAGGI, 10 

### Circuit Judges **.** 11

**_____________________________________** 12 13 **Lawrence Arthur Taylor,** 14 **Petitioner ,**  15 16 **v. 10-5113-ag** 17 18 **Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States** 19 **Attorney General,** 20 **Respondent** . 21

**_____________________________________** 22 23 

### FOR PETITIONER: Lawrence Arthur Taylor, pro **se**, **New** 24 

### York, NY. 25 26 

### FOR RESPONDENT: Kathryn M. McKinney (Stephen J. 27 

### Flynn, Assistant Director), Office 28 

### of Immigration Litigation, Civil 29

### 2 **Division, U.S. Department of** 1 

### Justice, Washington, D.C., for**Tony** 2 

### West, Assistant Attorney General 3 4 

### Petition for review from a decision of the Board of 5 

### Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). 6

7 

### UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 8



### AND DECREEDthat the petition for review is **DISMISSED, in** 9 

### part, and DENIED, in part. 10

11 

### Lawrence Arthur Taylor, a native and citizen of 12 

### Jamaica, petitions for review of the BIA decision affirming 13 

### the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), finding him 14 

### removable due to a conviction for a controlled-substance 15 

### offense, Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) 16 

### § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). See 17 

### In re Lawrence Arthur Taylor , No. A091 985 458 (B.I.A. Nov. 18 

### 19, 2010), aff’gNo. A091 985 458 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City 19 

### Sept. 17, 2009). 20 

### We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decision. See 21 

### Zaman v. Mukasey , 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008) (per 22 

### curiam ). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 23 

### underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 24 

### presented for review. 25

### 3 **[1]** We lack jurisdiction to consider a petition for review 1 

### of “any final order of removal against an alien who is 2 

### removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense 3 

### covered in section 1182(a)(2),” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), 4 

### unless the petition raises “constitutional claims or 5 

### questions of law,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), that are 6 

### “colorable,” seeBarco-Sandoval v. Gonzales , 516 F.3d 35, 40 7 

### (2d Cir. 2008). Taylor was found removable under 8 U.S.C. 8 

### § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), and his petition fails to raise a 9 

### colorable constitutional claim or question of law. 10 

### [2] Taylor’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel 11 

### fails for lack of any compliance with the procedure for 12 

### raising such a claim provided in Matter of Lozada , 19 I. & 13 

### N. Dec. 637, 639 (B.I.A. 1988). Although we do not require 14 

### “slavish adherence” with that procedure, we do require, at 15 

### minimum, “substantial compliance” with that procedure, Yang 16 

### v. Gonzales , 478 F.3d 133, 142-43 (2d Cir. 2007). 17 

### In any event, Taylor’s counsel was not ineffective. 18 

### Taylor must establish that he suffered prejudice from his 19 

### counsel’s concession that his conviction was a controlled 20 

### substance offense. See Cekic v. I.N.S. , 435 F.3d 167, 171 21 

### (2d Cir. 2006). An alien is inadmissible if he was 22 

### convicted of “a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to 23 

### violate) a[] law or regulation of a [s]tate . . . relat[ed] 24

### 4 to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of 1 

### Title 21).” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II); see also21 2 

### U.S.C. § 812(c), Schedule I(c)(10) (listing marijuana as a 3 

### Schedule I narcotic). Taylor was convicted of “knowingly . 4 

### . . [p]ossess[ing] marijuana for sale” under Ariz. Rev. 5 

### Stat. § 13-3405 -- a crime related to a controlled 6 

### substance. 7
8 

### Finding no merit in Taylor’s remaining arguments, we 9 

### hereby **DISMISS, in part, and DENY, in part,** Taylor’s 10 

### petition for review. 11
12


### FOR THE COURT: 13 

### Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 14 15 16