NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 18-1858 ______________ JOSE LANDESTOY NUNEZ Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent ______________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A046-551-644) Immigration Judge: Leo A. Finston ______________ Argued March 12, 2019 ______________ Before: MCKEE, PORTER, and ROTH, Circuit Judges. (Filed: July 24, 2019) John P. Leschak [ARGUED] Leschak & Associates, LLC 180 South Street Freehold, NJ 07728 Counsel for Petitioner Kathryn M. McKinney [ARGUED] Imran R. Zaidi Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent ______________ OPINION ______________ PORTER, Circuit Judge. Jose Landestoy Nunez petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeal’s order denying cancellation of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act § 240A(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). Because the Board has the authority to reweigh discretionary factors when deciding whether to grant cancellation of removal, and we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s discretionary decisions, we must dismiss the petition. I Landestoy, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States in 1998 when he was seven years old. Based on his uncle’s United States citizenship, he was admitted as a lawful permanent resident. Landestoy has an extensive criminal history; after his most recent conviction, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with removability. An immigration judge sustained the removal charge for a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Landestoy then sought cancellation of removal under § 1229b(a)(2). This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. 2 Landestoy’s parents testified that because of their medical conditions and lack of English fluency, they would experience hardship if Landestoy were removed. Several witnesses testified that Landestoy had changed after a religious conversion in prison and would not return to a life of crime after release. The immigration judge credited Landestoy’s own testimony, in which he expressed remorse for his past actions and commitment to redeeming himself after release from prison. He blamed his poor choices on marijuana addiction, but he has since completed a court-ordered rehabilitation treatment and attended Narcotics Anonymous meetings. Though Landestoy was never employed and has not filed an income tax return, he testified that he intends to work at a family friend’s barbershop or at his brother’s business if his petition is granted. Upon weighing these factors, the immigration judge determined that although there were “numerous” adverse factors that favored removal, including Landestoy’s “serious,” “recent,” and “worrisome” criminal history, the positive factors1 outweighed these. So the immigration judge granted Landestoy’s application for cancellation of removal. The Board reversed, concluding that Landestoy was not entitled to discretionary cancellation of removal. Landestoy then timely petitioned this Court for review. II 1 Positive factors to consider when considering discretionary cancellation of removal are proof of genuine rehabilitation if a criminal record exists, family ties and residency of long duration ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals