19-2041 Camacho v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A073 593 521 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 28th day of October, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ERIK CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. 19-2041 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, Youman, Madeo & Fasano, LLP, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director; Matthew B. George, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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 GRANTED. Petitioner Erik Camacho, a native and citizen of Venezuela, seeks review of a June 7, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a December 5, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering his removal on inadmissibility grounds. See In re Erik Camacho, No. A073 593 521 (B.I.A. June 7, 2019), aff’g No. A073 593 521 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Dec. 5, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal. Camacho was charged as removable under four grounds of inadmissibility under Section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(A)(i)(II), (a)(6)(A)(i), (a)(7)(A)(i)(I). The sole issue before us is whether the agency erred in finding that Camacho failed to meet his burden of showing that he was admitted to the United States as a visitor in 1995. As an initial matter, we conclude that we have jurisdiction to address this issue. The government contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) limits our jurisdiction because Camacho was ordered removed on criminal grounds of inadmissibility. But we have jurisdiction to determine whether this limitation applies, 2 and that requires determining whether Camacho established that he had been admitted to the United States. See Ming Lam Sui v. INS, 250 F.3d 105, 110 (2d Cir. 2001); see also Higgins v. Holder, 677 F.3d 97, 100 (2d Cir. 2012). We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals