Taylor v. Sessions, 714 F. App'x 85

Petitioner Randolf Taylor, a Jamaican national, was ordered removed based on a 2007 Connecticut conviction for possession of a controlled substance (marijuana).
Taylor later obtained a Connecticut Petition for Destruction of Record of Decriminalized Offense following the State’s reduction of penalties for small-quantity marijuana possession.
Taylor moved to reopen his immigration proceedings, arguing the state action effectively vacated his conviction for immigration purposes.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied the motion to reopen; Taylor petitioned for review in the Second Circuit.
The court considered whether the vacatur (or record destruction) was a merits-based vacatur that would eliminate the federal immigration ‘conviction.’

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Taylor’s 2007 state conviction remains a federal immigration “conviction” after Connecticut’s record-destruction/decriminalization	Taylor: Connecticut’s reduction of penalties and record destruction means the prior conviction should not count for immigration purposes	Government: The state action was not a merits-based vacatur; it reflected a change in law/policy, so the conviction still counts	Court: Held conviction remains valid for immigration purposes because the vacatur was not on the merits
Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen	Taylor: BIA erred in applying Pickering and refusing to treat the record destruction as vacatur on the merits	Government: BIA properly applied precedent distinguishing merits vacaturs from post-conviction policy actions	Court: No abuse of discretion; BIA provided a rational explanation

Durant v. INS, 393 F.3d 113 (2d Cir.) (jurisdictional limits on reviewing motions to reopen when removal is based on controlled substance convictions)
Saleh v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 17 (2d Cir.) (deference to BIA’s construction of "conviction" and discussion of merits-based vacatur)
United States v. Campbell, 167 F.3d 94 (2d Cir.) (federal, not state, law determines whether one has been "convicted" under federal statutes)
Sutherland v. Holder, 769 F.3d 144 (2d Cir.) (jurisdiction to review legal questions about whether a state vacatur eliminates an immigration conviction)
INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (1992) (motions to reopen are disfavored procedural posture guidance)
Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 421 F.3d 149 (2d Cir.) (heavy burden required to show new evidence would change the outcome of removal proceedings)