20-1525 Paredes Moscoso v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A208 113 473 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 29th day of September, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges, JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge.* _____________________________________ GONZALO IVAN PAREDES MOSCOSO, Petitioner, v. 20-1525 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, * Judge John G. Koeltl, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Erin O’Neil-Baker, Esq., O’Neil Baker Law, LLC, Hartford, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Sabatino F. Leo, Assistant Director; Corey L. Farrell, 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 DISMISSED. Petitioner Gonzalo Ivan Paredes Moscoso, a native and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a decision of the BIA affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge denying his application for cancellation of removal. In re Gonzalo Ivan Paredes Moscoso, No. A208 113 473 (B.I.A. Apr. 24, 2020), aff’g No. 208 113 473 (Immig. Ct. Hartford July 10, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history, to which we refer only as necessary to resolve the petition. We review the IJ’s decision “as supplemented by the BIA.” Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Parades Moscoso is a nonpermanent resident, so 2 the BIA may, in its discretion, cancel his removal if he “establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to” a qualifying relative, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D), and satisfies various other criteria not at issue here, id. § 1229b(b)(1)(A)–(C). To meet the demanding “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard, an applicant must show that “qualifying relatives would suffer hardship that is substantially different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected from the deportation of an alien with close family members here.” In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 65 (B.I.A. 2001); see also In re Andazola-Rivas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 319, 322 (B.I.A. 2002) (noting that exceptional and extremely unusual …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals