21-6508 Lliguichuzhca Paguay v. Garland 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 9th day of December, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: Denny Chin, Steven J. Menashi, Beth Robinson, Circuit Judges. ____________________________________________ SEGUNDO JAIME LLIGUICHUZHCA PAGUAY, Petitioner, v. No. 21-6508 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________________________________ For Petitioner: Nicholas J. Mundy, Brooklyn, NY. For Respondent: Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Jessica A. Dawgert, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffrey M. Hartman, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Upon due consideration of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED. Petitioner Segundo Jaime Lliguichuzhca Paguay, a citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a decision of the BIA entered August 31, 2021, which summarily affirmed the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), entered August 22, 2018, that denied his application for cancellation of removal. In re Segundo Jaime Lliguichuzhca Paguay, No. A088 630 774 (B.I.A. Aug. 31, 2021), aff’g No. 088 630 774 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 22, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. See Kambolli v. 2 Gonzales, 449 F.3d 454, 456 (2d Cir. 2006). For “an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States” such as Paguay, the agency may cancel removal when—in addition to meeting other statutory requirements—the alien “establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Here, Paguay’s son is a U.S. citizen and his parents are lawful permanent residents. Our jurisdiction to review the denial of cancellation on hardship grounds is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law. See id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1618 (2022) (“With an exception for legal and constitutional questions, Congress has barred judicial review of the Attorney General’s decisions denying discretionary relief from removal.”). Accordingly, “we have jurisdiction to review …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals