21-6415-ag Cervantes 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 8th day of March, two thousand twenty-three. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, REENA RAGGI, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. MARISOL DE FELIPE CERVANTES, JOSE MANUEL GONZALEZ MARTINES, Petitioners, 21-6415-ag v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent. FOR PETITIONER: Craig Relles, Law Office of Craig Relles, White Plains, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Nelle M. Seymour, Trial Attorney (Jessica E. Burns, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, for Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ, Washington, DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order entered on July 2, 2021 is DISMISSED. Petitioners Marisol de Felipe Cervantes and Jose Manuel Gonzalez Martines, both natives of Mexico with U.S. citizen children, seek review of a decision by the BIA that affirmed a decision by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) to deny cancellation for removal. See In re De Felipe Cervantes, Martines, Nos. A206 560 203/199 (B.I.A. July 2, 2021), aff’g Nos. A206 560 203/199 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Sept. 24, 2018). The IJ made an adverse credibility finding against Petitioners, and denied cancellation for removal on several bases, including that Petitioners did not show that removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to any qualifying relative (i.e., their two U.S.-citizen children). 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). A.R. 3–4. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Petitioners contend that remand is necessary because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision to deny cancellation without addressing the IJ’s credibility finding, and that either “the basis for the Board’s decision is unclear” or the “adverse credibility determination was central to the IJ’s determination that hardship was not established.” Pets. Br. 12. Contrary to Petitioners’ arguments, however, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s hardship determination without adopting the adverse credibility finding. See A.R. 3 (“While not reaching each issue in this case, we conclude that the Immigration Judge properly denied the [petitioners’] applications for cancellation of removal upon concluding that they had not established that their removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to any of their United States citizen children.”). The BIA …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals