Lawrence Arthur TAYLOR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent, 462 F. App'x 68

SUMMARY ORDER Lawrence Arthur Taylor, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of the BIA decision affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), finding him removable due to a conviction for a controlled-substance offense, Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). See In re Lawrence Arthur Taylor, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 19, 2010), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 17, 2009). We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decision. See Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir.2008) (per cu-riam ).

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review. [1] We lack jurisdiction to consider a petition for review of “any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in

section 1182(a)(2),” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), unless the petition raises “constitutional claims or questions of law,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), that are “colorable,” see Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 40 (2d Cir.2008). Taylor was found removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), and his petition fails to raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law. [2] Taylor’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails for lack of any compliance with the procedure for raising such a claim provided in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637, 639 (B.I.A.1988).

Although we do not require “slavish adherence” with that procedure, we do require, at minimum, “substantial compliance” with that procedure, Yang v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 133, 142-43 (2d Cir.2007). In any event, Taylor’s counsel was not ineffective. Taylor must establish that he suffered prejudice from his counsel’s concession that his conviction was a controlled substance offense. See Cekic v. I.N.S., 435 F.3d 167, 171 (2d Cir.2006).

An alien is inadmissible if he was convicted of “a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) a[ ] law or regulation of a[s] tate ... relat[ed] to a controlled substance (as defined in

section 802 of Title 21).” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II); see also 21 U.S.C. § 812(c),

Schedule I(c)(10) (listing marijuana as a

Schedule I narcotic). Taylor was convicted of “knowingly ... [p]os-sess[ing] marijuana for sale” under Ariz. Rev.Stat. § 13-3405 — a crime related to a controlled substance. Finding no merit in Taylor’s remaining arguments, we hereby DISMISS, in part, and DENY, in part, Taylor’s petition for review.