Balbuena v. Sessions

16-3317-ag Balbuena v. Sessions BIA Sagerman, IJ A088 440 776 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 for the Second Circuit, held at 2 the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New 3 York, on the 9th day of November, two thousand seventeen. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 GERARD E. LYNCH, 7 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 8 Circuit Judges, 9 ERIC N. VITALIANO, 10 District Judge. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 EDUARDO BALBUENA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3317-ag 17 18 19 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 20 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: KRISTIN JUNG, Student Attorney (Emily Bendana, 25 Wilfredo Lopez, Student Attorneys, and Vanessa 26 Merton, Supervising Attorney, on the brief), John Jay 27 Legal Services, Inc., Elisabeth Haub School of Law at 28 Pace University, White Plains, NY.  Judge Eric N. Vitaliano, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: DANA M. CAMILLERI, Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation (Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant 3 Director, and Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 4 Attorney General, on the brief), United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington DC. 6 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration 8 Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the 9 petition for review is DENIED. 10 Petitioner Eduardo Balbuena, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of an August 11 29, 2016 decision of the BIA affirming an April 12, 2016 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 12 ordering his removal. In re Eduardo Balbuena, No. A 088 440 776 (B.I.A. Aug. 29, 2016), aff’g 13 No. A 088 440 776 (Immig. Ct. Napanoch, N.Y. Apr. 12, 2016). We assume the parties’ 14 familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and the issues on review, to which we 15 refer only as necessary to explain our decision to deny the petition. 16 Because Balbuena was ordered removed based on his criminal convictions, our jurisdiction 17 on appeal is limited to consideration of constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. 18 §§ 1252(a)(2)(C), (D). Balbuena does not dispute that he was (and is currently) statutorily 19 ineligible for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident by virtue of his entry without 20 inspection, unlawful presence, ...

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