20-586(L) Mazariegos 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 23rd day of April, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: Guido Calabresi, Steven J. Menashi, Circuit Judges, John G. Koeltl, District Judge. * ____________________________________________ RAUL MAZARIEGOS, AKA RAUL SANDOVAL ALALRCON, AKA MARIO ROLANDO MARTINEZ, Petitioner, * Judge John G. Koeltl, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. v. No. 20-586(L), 20-1922(Con) MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. † ____________________________________________ For Petitioner: S. Bernard Schwarz, S. Bernard Schwarz & Associates, New York, NY. For Respondent: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Claire L. Workman, Assistant Director; Edward C. Durant, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the lead petition is DISMISSED and the consolidated petition is DENIED. † The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 2 Petitioner Raul Mazariegos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a January 17, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming an April 17, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Mazariegos’s application for cancellation of removal, and a June 11, 2020 decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Raul Mazariegos, No. A 097 519 228 (B.I.A. Jan. 17, 2020), aff’g No. A 097 519 228 (Immig. Ct. Apr. 17, 2018); In re Raul Mazariegos, No. A 097 519 228 (B.I.A. Jun. 11, 2020). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. I We dismiss the lead petition, No. 20-586, for lack of jurisdiction. Mazariegos challenges the denial of cancellation of removal. To obtain cancellation, he had to establish, among other requirements, that his removal “would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to” a qualifying relative—here, his three children. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Our review is limited to the hardship determination because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision on that ground alone. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Our jurisdiction to review the denial of cancellation of removal based on an applicant’s failure to satisfy the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals