20-3016 Chiriboga v. Garland BIA Barcus, IJ A089 922 638 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 25th day of October, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., ROBERT D. SACK, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ BORIS ALEJANDRO CHIRIBOGA, Petitioner, v. No. 20-3016 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Alexander J. Segal, The Law Offices of Grinberg & Segal, P.L.L.C., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph A. O’Connell, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation (Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, on the brief) for Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, 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 Boris Alejandro Chiriboga, a native and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a 2020 decision of the BIA affirming a 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for cancellation of removal. Boris Alejandro Chiriboga, No. A089 922 638 (B.I.A. Aug. 11, 2020), aff’g No. 089 922 638 (Immg. Ct. N.Y. City May 30, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to dismiss the petition. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). For a nonpermanent resident such as Chiriboga, the agency may cancel removal where, as relevant here, the applicant “establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to” a qualifying relative. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Chiriboga’s only qualifying relative for the purpose of this statute is his youngest daughter, who is a U.S. citizen. Our jurisdiction to review the denial of cancellation of removal on 2 hardship grounds is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law. See id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 36, 38–40 (2d Cir. 2008). A question of law may arise where the agency “totally overlooked” or “seriously mischaracterized” evidence. Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316, 323 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam). We dismiss the petition because Chiriboga’s argument that the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals