Fenelon v. Lynch
675 F. App'x 49
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Marc Antoine Fenelon, a Haitian national, was ordered removed and sought withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection after a conviction for a drug-related controlled substance offense.
- An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied withholding and CAT relief (Dec. 14, 2009); the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed and denied Fenelon’s motion to remand (Jan. 14, 2016).
- Fenelon argued the agency misapplied Matter of Y-L- presumption that drug-trafficking aggravated felonies are particularly serious crimes and failed to consider evidence rebutting that presumption.
- He also argued the agency ignored or misstated CAT evidence, including expert reports and evidence of his mental illness, and that new evidence warranted remand.
- The Second Circuit reviewed IJ and BIA decisions (for completeness) but held it lacked jurisdiction over discretionary denials tied to his controlled-substance conviction, except for colorable constitutional or legal questions.
Issues
| Issue | Fenelon’s Argument | Lynch’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Matter of Y-L- presumptively treats drug-trafficking aggravated felonies as "particularly serious crimes" and whether that presumption was misapplied | Y-L- is unlawful and agency failed to adequately explain applying the presumption to him | Y-L- presumptions are a permissible AG interpretation and agency applied the correct standard; Fenelon offered no rebuttal evidence | Court upheld Chevron deference to Y-L- and declined to disturb agency factual application; no jurisdiction to review the discretionary factual determinations |
| Whether the agency ignored or misweighed CAT evidence (including expert report and mental-health evidence) such that a legal or constitutional claim is raised | Agency ignored evidence and mischaracterized the record, warranting review and relief under CAT | IJ and BIA considered the evidence, found it insufficient to show likelihood of torture or government acquiescence; weight of evidence is discretionary | Court found no colorable legal or constitutional question; agency considered the material and reasonably declined CAT relief |
| Whether the BIA abused discretion by denying motion to remand based on new evidence | New/updated expert report and medical evidence warranted remand | New evidence was duplicative, not material, and did not change likelihood of torture or behavior in custody | Court held BIA did not abuse discretion; evidence was largely duplicative or inapposite |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review denials of withholding/deferral for aliens removable for controlled-substance offenses | Jurisdiction exists to review constitutional or legal questions; Fenelon framed issues as legal/constitutional | Jurisdiction is barred for discretionary factual determinations under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(C); only colorable legal questions reviewable | Court dismissed/denied petition in part: lacked jurisdiction over discretionary denials and found no colorable legal/constitutional claims to review |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (court may review IJ and BIA decisions for completeness)
- Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (2d Cir. 2009) (standards of review for immigration appeals)
- Ortiz-Franco v. Holder, 782 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2015) (jurisdictional bar applies to removable aliens convicted of controlled-substance offenses)
- Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767 (2d Cir. 2009) (de novo review of colorable constitutional or legal claims)
- Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2008) (colorability requirement for jurisdiction over legal/constitutional claims)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (presumption agency considered all evidence absent compelling record suggestion otherwise)
- Miguel-Miguel v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding Matter of Y-L- presumptive standard as reasonable)
- Hui Lin Huang v. Holder, 677 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard for colorable legal questions in CAT context)
- Li Yong Cao v. Dep’t of Justice, 421 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2005) (motions to remand based on new evidence treated like motions to reopen)
- Durant v. INS, 393 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2004) (criminal jurisdiction bar applies to denials of motions to reopen)