Latty v. Lynch
672 F. App'x 127
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Gary Latty, a Jamaican national, sought cancellation of removal; IJ denied relief and ordered removal to Jamaica; BIA affirmed.
- Key eligibility requirement at issue: applicant must show good moral character for the 10 years before applying under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(B).
- Government relied on an arrest report showing police found multiple bags of marijuana in Latty’s car, that he led officers to a “stash house,” and officers found additional marijuana, packaging materials, and a scale.
- Latty’s conviction related to the incident had been vacated, but the agency relied on the arrest report to conclude there was reason to believe he engaged in drug trafficking, disqualifying him from good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(3)/§ 1182(a)(2)(C).
- Latty argued the report was hearsay/unreliable and objected at the merits hearing; he also raised bias and ineffective-assistance claims which the court found unexhausted.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the IJ and BIA decisions (factual findings for substantial evidence; legal questions de novo) and denied or dismissed the petition accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Latty met the good moral character requirement | Latty contends arrest report is unreliable/hearsay; conviction vacated so cannot be deemed a trafficker | Arrest report provided reasonable belief of illicit trafficking despite vacated conviction; conviction not required | Held: Agency reasonably found Latty could be considered an illicit trafficker; good moral character not established |
| Admissibility/reliability of arrest report | Report is hearsay and should be excluded; due process violated if admitted | Removal proceedings do not follow FRE; evidence admissible if probative and fundamentally fair; report contained officers’ firsthand observations | Held: Admission did not violate due process; report sufficiently reliable and probative |
| Jurisdiction to review denial of cancellation on good moral character ground | (implicit) Court has jurisdiction to review agency’s good moral character determination | Government conceded limited review but court retains jurisdiction for this eligibility element | Held: Court has jurisdiction to review good moral character determination and did so |
| Bias and ineffective-assistance claims | Latty raised bias and ineffective-assistance of counsel | Government argued claims unexhausted before BIA | Held: Claims unexhausted and dismissed by the Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (review standard for IJ and BIA decisions)
- Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510 (standards of review for immigration appeals)
- Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104 (requirements for exhaustion of administrative remedies)
- Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316 (jurisdiction to review some eligibility requirements for cancellation)
- Zerrei v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 342 (due process and admissibility standard in removal proceedings)
- Zhen Nan Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 459 F.3d 255 (reliability/fundamental fairness test for evidence)
- Garces v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 611 F.3d 1337 (conviction not required to find reason to believe illicit trafficking)