18‐3799 Blanco Robles v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A094 777 026 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 11th day of March, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ NELSON BLANCO ROBLES, AKA NELSON BLANCO, Petitioner, v. 18‐3799 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Jon E. Jessen, Stamford, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director; Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED. Petitioner Nelson Blanco Robles, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a November 27, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming a May 22, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for cancellation of removal. In re Nelson Blanco Robles, No. A094 777 026 (BIA Nov. 27, 2018), aff’g No. A094 777 026 (Immig. Ct. Hartford May 22, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal, 2 including its hardship determination, is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law, which we review de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Barco‐Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 36 (2d Cir. 2008); Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). When assessing jurisdiction, we “study the arguments asserted . . . to determine, regardless of the rhetoric employed in the petition, whether it merely quarrels over the correctness of the factual findings or justification for the discretionary choices, in which case the court would lack jurisdiction, or whether it instead raises a ‘constitutional claim’ or ‘question of law,’ in which case the court could exercise jurisdiction to review those particular issues.” Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir. 2006); see also ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals