18-3101 (L) Barros v. Barr BIA Kolbe, IJ A089 175 426/088 619 331 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 23rd day of January, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: REENA RAGGI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JOSE ALBERTO BARROS, AKA JOSE BARROS ESCANDON, NANCY LEONOR TENESACA PACHO, Petitioners, v. 18-3101 (L), 18-3119 (Con) WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: Cory Forman, Cohen Forman Barone, LLP, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director; Micah S. Engler, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review are DISMISSED. Petitioners Jose Alberto Barros and Nancy Leonor Tenesaca Pacho, natives and citizens of Ecuador, seek review of a BIA decision affirming without opinion an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Barros’s and Tenesaca Pacho’s applications for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). In re Barros & Tenesaca Pacho, Nos. A 089 175 426/088 619 331 (B.I.A. Sept. 19, 2018), aff’g Nos. A 089 175 426/088 619 331 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 21, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination because the BIA summarily affirmed that decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4); Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 2008). We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ challenge to the BIA’s decision not to issue a three-member ruling. See Kambolli v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 454, 461–63 (2d Cir. 2006); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6) (setting out circumstances required for three-member decision). The “streamlining regulations’ provision for summary affirmance of IJ decisions by a single Board 2 member does not deprive an asylum applicant of due process.” Yu Sheng Zhang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 362 F.3d 155, 157 (2d Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the only issue before us is the IJ’s denial of cancellation on the ground that Barros and Tenesaca Pacho did not demonstrate that their U.S.-citizen children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship in ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals