20-2449 Mbengue v. Garland BIA Vomacka, IJ A093 436 064 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 19th 4 day of October, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 FATOU MBENGUE, 14 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-2449 18 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONER: Genet Getachew, Law Office of Genet 26 Getachew, Brooklyn, NY. 27 28 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 29 Attorney General; Sabatino F. Leo, 30 Assistant Director; Madeline Henley, 31 Trial Attorney, Office of 32 Immigration Litigation, United 1 States Department of Justice, 2 Washington, DC. 3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board 4 of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, 5 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED. 6 Petitioner Fatou Mbengue, a native and citizen of Senegal, 7 seeks review of the BIA’s 2020 decision affirming a 2018 decision 8 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for 9 cancellation of removal. In re Fatou Mbengue, No. A093 436 064 10 (B.I.A. July 2, 2020), aff’g No. A093 436 064 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. 11 City July 16, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 12 underlying facts and procedural history. 13 We have reviewed both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions “for 14 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 15 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). For a nonpermanent resident 16 like Mbengue, the Attorney General may cancel removal where, as 17 relevant here, the applicant “establishes that removal would 18 result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to” a 19 qualifying relative – here Mbengue’s U.S. citizen daughters. 8 20 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Our jurisdiction to review this hardship 21 determination is limited to constitutional claims and questions of 22 law. Id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 23 F.3d 35, 36, 38–40 (2d Cir. 2008). A question of law may arise 2 1 where the agency “overlooked” or where it “seriously 2 mischaracterized” evidence, Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316, 323 3 (2d Cir. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals