18-3563 Mendez-Fuentes v. Wilkinson BIA A029 179 993 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 4 on the 8th day of February, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 9 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JOSE MENDEZ-FUENTES, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 18-3563 17 NAC 18 ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Perham Makabi, Kew Gardens, NY. 25 1Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Robert M. Wilkinson is automatically substituted for former Attorney General William P. Barr. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Janice K. Redfern, Senior 2 Litigation Counsel (Jeffrey 3 Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant 4 Attorney General, Linda S. 5 Wernery, Assistant Director, 6 Office of Immigration Litigation), 7 for Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting 8 United States Attorney General, 9 United States Department of 10 Justice, Washington, DC. 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 12 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 13 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 14 is DISMISSED. 15 Petitioner Jose Mendez-Fuentes, a native and citizen of 16 El Salvador, seeks review of an October 30, 2018 decision of 17 the BIA denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. 18 In re Jose Mendez-Fuentes, No. A029 179 993 (B.I.A. Oct. 30, 19 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 20 facts and procedural history. 21 Mendez-Fuentes moved to reopen related to his statutory 22 eligibility for special rule cancellation of removal under 23 the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”), 24 which gives the agency discretion to cancel the removal of 25 undocumented immigrants from certain countries if they 26 satisfy physical presence, moral character, and hardship 2 1 requirements. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66. We review a denial of a 2 motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Ali v. Gonzales, 3 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir. 2006). Our jurisdiction is limited 4 to consideration of constitutional claims and questions of 5 law as we are statutorily divested of authority to review 6 discretionary determinations concerning cancellation of 7 removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); Argueta v. 8 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals