18-2538 Canales v. Barr BIA Christensen, IJ A094 486 107 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 4th day of December, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, GUIDO CALABRESI, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ MARTIL DE JESUS CANALES, Petitioner, v. 18-2538-ag WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: STEPHEN N. PREZIOSI, Law Office of Stephen N. Preziosi, P.C., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: TIMOTHY G. HAYES, Trial Attorney (Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, on the brief), for the Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 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 Martil De Jesus Canales (“Canales”), a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of an August 14, 2018 decision of the BIA affirming a September 15, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Canales’s application for cancellation of removal. In re Martil De Jesus Canales, No. A 094 486 107 (B.I.A. Aug. 14, 2018), aff’g No. A 094 486 107 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Sept. 15, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have reviewed both the BIA’s and the IJ’s decisions. 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 is limited to colorable constitutional claims and questions of law. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 39–40 (2d Cir. 2008). A nonpermanent resident, such as Canales, may have his removal cancelled if he (1) “has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years,” (2) “has been a person of good moral character during” those years, (3) has not been convicted of certain offenses, and (4) demonstrates that his “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, 2 parent, or child. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The agency denied relief based solely on a failure to show hardship. Hardship is ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals