22-6244 Dhavamani 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 25th day of April, two thousand twenty- three. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., RICHARD C. WESLEY, BETH ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ARUN PRAKASH DHAVAMANI, Petitioner, v. 22-6244 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Daniel E. Jackson, Corfu, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Jonathan A. Robbins, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Roberta O. Roberts, 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 Arun Prakash Dhavamani, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a May 3, 2022 decision of the BIA affirming a December 8, 2021 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for cancellation of removal. 1 In re Arun Prakash Dhavamani, No. A 205 969 924 (B.I.A. May 3, 2022), aff’g No. A 205 969 924 (Immig. Ct. Batavia Dec. 8, 2021). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. A nonpermanent resident, like Dhavamani, may have his removal cancelled if he has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of ten years, has good moral character, does not have certain convictions, and 1 Dhavamani has not challenged the agency’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. 2 establishes that his qualifying relatives would suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if he were removed. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). If a nonpermanent resident meets these statutory eligibility requirements, then the IJ makes a discretionary determination whether to grant or deny cancellation. Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 60, 62 (2d Cir. 2006). Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1625 (2022) (holding that “§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) does not stop at just the grant or denial of relief; it extends to any judgment ‘regarding’ that ultimate decision”); Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals