20-587 Correia v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A059 140 536 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 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 14th day of June, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, GERARD E. LYNCH, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ GILSON BRUNO DIAS CORREIA, Petitioner, v. No. 20-587 MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Randy Olen, Olen Law Offices, Providence, RI. FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Assistant Attorney General; Anna E. Juarez, Senior Litigation Counsel; Lindsay Marshall, 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 Gilson Bruno Dias Correia, a native and citizen of the Republic of Cabo Verde, petitions for review of the BIA’s January 17, 2020 decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) September 26, 2019 decision ordering his removal. In re Correia, No. A059 140 536 (B.I.A. Jan. 17, 2020), aff’g No. A059 140 536 (Immigr. Ct. Hartford Sept. 26, 2019). Correia does not challenge his removability or the denial of relief from removal, but he argues that the IJ violated Agency regulations by (1) not obtaining a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to be represented by counsel or allowing him adequate time to obtain counsel, and (2) not informing him that he was apparently eligible to apply for adjustment of status as relief from removal. 2 Our jurisdiction is “limited” to considering these specific claims, Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1690 (2020), only insofar as they constitute “constitutional claims or questions of law,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Beyond that, however, we lack jurisdiction to review the Agency’s orders, since they found Correia “removable by reason of having committed a [specified] criminal offense,” id. § 1252(a)(2)(C) – that is, an “aggravated felon[y],” Gelman v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 495, 498 (2d Cir. 2004). Our review is further limited by the “mandatory” requirement that an alien “exhaust[] all administrative remedies available . . . as of right” before petitioning for our review; thus, we generally have power to review only those claims upon which “a decision has been rendered . . . by an …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals