19-2729 Garcia v. Wilkinson BIA Straus, IJ A047 369 752 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4th 4 day of March, two thousand twenty-one. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 PAUL ANDRE JUDE MARIANO GARCIA, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 19-2729 17 18 ROBERT M. WILKINSON, ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 1 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Dalia H. Fuleihan, Esq., New Haven 24 Legal Assistance Association, New 25 Haven, CT. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Keith I. McManus, Assistant Director; 28 Rachel L. Browning, Trial Attorney, 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Robert M. Wilkinson is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen as Respondent. 1 Office of Immigration Litigation, 2 United States Department of Justice, 3 Washington, DC. 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board 5 of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, 6 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 7 Petitioner Paul Andre Jude Mariano Garcia, a native and 8 citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, seeks review of an August 1, 2019 9 decision of the BIA affirming a February 22, 2019 decision of an 10 Immigration Judge (“IJ”), ordering his removal and denying his 11 application for cancellation of removal. In re Paul Andre Jude 12 Mariano Garcia, No. A 047 369 752 (B.I.A. Aug. 1, 2019), aff’g No. 13 A 047 369 752 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Feb. 22, 2019). We have reviewed 14 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of 15 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 16 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 17 underlying facts and procedural history in this case, to which we 18 refer only as necessary to explain our decision. 19 At the outset, we reject Garcia’s argument that the agency 20 lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because his 21 initial notice to appear (“NTA”) did not include a hearing date or 22 time. In Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 922 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2019), we 23 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals