21-6256 Esquivel-Garcia 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 5th day of October, two thousand twenty-two. PRESENT: SUSAN L. CARNEY, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ DANIEL ESQUIVEL-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. 21-6256 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: PAUL O’DWYER, Esq., Law Office of Paul O’Dwyer, P.C., New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: JESSICA R. LESNAU, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation (Lindsay Marshall, Julie M. Iversen, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief), for Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED. Petitioner Daniel Esquivel-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of an April 12, 2021 decision of the BIA, affirming a December 7, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for cancellation of removal. In re Daniel Esquivel-Garcia, No. A206 031 064 (B.I.A. Apr. 12, 2021), aff’g No. A206 031 064 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 7, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). A noncitizen like Esquivel-Garcia, who is not a permanent resident, may have his removal cancelled if, as relevant here, he “establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to [his] spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). For a 2 petitioner to be eligible for cancellation, the hardship to the qualifying relative “must be substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a close family member leaves this country.” In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 62 (B.I.A. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal based on an applicant’s failure to satisfy the hardship requirement is limited to colorable constitutional claims and questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 39-41 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals