19-482 Wilson v. Garland BIA Ruehle, IJ A075 913 677 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 TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 28th day of July, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ WENDELL K. WILSON, Petitioner, v. 19-482 NAC MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Robert F. Graziano, Buffalo, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Claire L. Workman, Senior Litigation Counsel; Rachel L. Browning, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Wendell K. Wilson, a native and citizen of Grenada, seeks review of a January 28, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming an August 17, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). In re Wendell K. Wilson, No. A 075 913 677 (B.I.A. Jan. 28, 2019), aff’g No. A 075 913 677 (Immig. Ct. Batavia Aug. 17, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have considered both the BIA’s and IJ’s decision “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions, including constitutional claims, de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513, 516 (2d Cir. 2009); Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). The agency denied cancellation of removal and Wilson’s 2 motions to subpoena a witness in support of that relief and for a continuance to pursue an asylum application. Wilson does not challenge the agency’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal, but he argues that the denial of a subpoena and a continuance deprived him of due process. 1 To succeed on a due process claim, Wilson must show that he was denied a “full and fair opportunity” to present his claims or that he was otherwise deprived of “fundamental fairness,” Burger v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted), and that the deprivation resulted in “cognizable prejudice,” …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals