19-1074 Bekpo v. Barr BIA Mulligan, IJ A204 719 918 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 14th day of May, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, SUSAN L. CARNEY, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ FRANKLIN KODZO BEKPO, Petitioner, v. 19-1074 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: CRAIG RELLES, Law Office of Craig Relles, White Plains, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: ELIZABETH R. CHAPMAN, Trial Attorney (Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, on the brief) for the 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 Franklin Kodzo Bekpo, a native and citizen of Ghana, seeks review of a 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Bekpo’s application for cancellation of removal and a waiver of inadmissibility. In re Franklin Kodzo Bekpo, No. A 204 719 918 (B.I.A. Mar. 29, 2019), aff’g No. A 204 719 918 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Oct. 9, 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 for review. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA’s. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Our jurisdiction to review Bekpo’s petition is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law for two reasons: first, because he was ordered removed based on his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”), and second, because he seeks review of the agency’s denial of discretionary relief (that is, cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b and waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)–(D); see also Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 325 (2d Cir. 2 2006). We review constitutional claims and questions of law de novo. Gjerjaj v. Holder, 691 F.3d 288, 292 (2d Cir. 2012). For jurisdiction to attach, such claims must be colorable. Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 40–41 (2d Cir. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals