Almonte v. Garland

21-6544 Almonte 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 6th day of January, two thousand twenty-three. PRESENT: Steven J. Menashi, Eunice C. Lee, Sarah A. L. Merriam, Circuit Judges. ____________________________________________ CECILIO A. ALMONTE, Petitioner, v. No. 21-6544 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________________________________ For Petitioner: Gisela Chavez-Garcia, Law Offices of Gisela Chavez-Garcia, New York, NY. For Respondent: Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation; Monica G. Antoun, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Upon due consideration of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. Petitioner Cecilio A. Almonte, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of a September 8, 2021, decision of the BIA affirming a December 14, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for cancellation of removal. In re Cecilio A. Almonte, No. A073 496 506 (B.I.A. Sept. 8, 2021), aff’g No. A073 496 506 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 14, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. 2 We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The agency “may cancel removal in the case of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States,” such as Almonte, if the alien “(1) has been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than 5 years, (2) has resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status, and (3) has not been convicted of an aggravated felony.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). “[C]ancellation of removal is a two-step process. First, an alien must prove eligibility by showing that he meets the statutory eligibility requirements. Second, assuming [the] alien satisfies the statutory requirements, the Attorney General in his discretion decides whether to grant or deny relief.” Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316, 319-20 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 60, 62 (2d Cir. 2006)). In assessing whether cancellation of …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals