17-2678 Espinal v. Sessions 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 29th day of August, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, PETER W. HALL, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ RAFAEL ERNESTO ESPINAL, AKA RAFAEL E. BETANCOURT, Petitioner, v. No. 17-2678-ag JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: JM Mariotti, New York, N.Y. FOR RESPONDENT: Brendan P. Hogan, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Chad A. Readler, Assistant Attorney General, Song Park, Senior Litigation Counsel, for Jefferson B. Sessions III, United States Attorney General, Washington, D.C. 1 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 Rafael Ernesto Espinal, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, seeks review of a July 26, 2017 decision of the BIA dismissing Espinal’s appeal of an October 3, 2016, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering his removal and denying his applications for relief from removal. In re Rafael Ernesto Espinal, No. A 073 136 517 (B.I.A. July 26, 2017), aff’g No. A 073 136 517 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 3, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Our jurisdiction to review Espinal’s removal order is limited to “constitutional claims or questions of law,” which we review de novo. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see id. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (C); Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). To invoke our jurisdiction, such claims must be “colorable.” Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[W]e lack jurisdiction to review any legal argument that is so insubstantial and frivolous as to be inadequate to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)). Because the BIA’s decision “closely tracks” the IJ’s decision, we review both decisions together. See Richmond v. Holder, 714 F.3d 725, 728 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Lecaj v. Holder, 616 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2010)). 2 As an initial matter, Espinal argues that the agency erred in sustaining the fraud-or-willful-misrepresentation ground of removability because the record did not reflect that the former Immigration and Naturalization Service rescinded his lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) status and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals