Court Opinion

ID: 9351949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-04 16:01:14.144091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:39.805646
License: Public Domain

20-3895
     Thompson v. Garland
                                                                            BIA
                                                                       Sponzo, IJ
                                                                    A035 786 569
                           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 4th day of January, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            GUIDO CALABRESI,
 9            ROBERT D. SACK,
10            RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,
11                 Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13
14   DION CONROY THOMPSON,
15            Petitioner,
16
17                    v.                                  20-3895
18                                                        NAC
19   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
20   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
21            Respondent.
22   _____________________________________
23
24   FOR PETITIONER:                  Craig Relles, Esq., Law Office of
25                                    Craig Relles, White Plains, NY.
26
27   FOR RESPONDENT:                  Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant
28                                    Attorney General; Sabatino F. Leo,
 1                                  Assistant Director; Corey L.
 2                                  Farrell, Attorney, Office of
 3                                  Immigration Litigation, United
 4                                  States Department of Justice,
 5                                  Washington, DC.

 6         UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

 7   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

 8   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

9    is DISMISSED.

10         Petitioner Dion Conroy Thompson, a native and citizen of

11   Jamaica, seeks review of a November 3, 2020 decision of the

12   BIA reversing a November 27, 2019 decision of an Immigration

13   Judge (“IJ”) granting his application for protection under

14   the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).          In re Dion Conroy

15   Thompson, No. A035 786 569 (B.I.A. Nov. 3, 2020), aff’g No.

16   A035 786 569 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Nov. 27, 2019).           We assume

17   the   parties’   familiarity    with   the   underlying    facts   and

18   procedural history.

19         We “have an independent obligation to ensure that [we]

20   do not exceed the scope of [our] jurisdiction, and therefore

21   [we] must raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the

22   parties either overlook or elect not to press.”           Bhaktibhai-

23   Patel v. Garland, 32 F.4th 180, 187 (2d Cir. 2022).                Our

24   jurisdiction is limited to petitions for review filed within
                                   2
 1   30     days    of    “final     order[s]           of    removal.”        8     U.S.C.

 2   § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1).           We lack jurisdiction over Thompson’s

 3   petition because the 2020 BIA decision — the only decision as

 4   to which the petition would be timely — is a decision in

 5   withholding-only proceedings that does not constitute a final

 6   order of removal.         See Bhaktibhai-Patel, 32 F.4th at 190–91.

 7   The    BIA’s   decision       denying    CAT       protection      following      the

 8   reinstatement of Thompson’s prior removal order is not itself

9    an order of removal because it does not “determine whether

10   [Thompson] is deportable,” “order deportation,” or “affect

11   the validity of any determination regarding [Thompson’s]

12   deportability        or   deportation.”                 Id.   at   190    (internal

13   quotation marks omitted); see also Parchment v. Garland, No.

14   19-3238, 2022 WL 1320315, at *1 (2d Cir. May 3, 2022).

15          Thompson’s October 2020 petition is untimely as to his

16   removal order because it was not filed within 30 days of his

17   1995    deportation       order    or        the    Department       of       Homeland

18   Security’s 2018 reinstatement of that order.                             Bhaktibhai-

19   Patel, 32 F.4th at 190–95; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)

20   (30-day deadline for petition for review); Luna v. Holder,

21   637    F.3d    85,   92   (2d     Cir.   2011)          (“Th[e]    30–day       filing

                                              3
1   requirement is jurisdictional and is not subject to equitable

2   tolling.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

3       For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

4   DISMISSED.   All pending motions and applications are DENIED

5   and stays VACATED.

6                               FOR THE COURT:
7                               Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
8                               Clerk of Court

                                  4