19-625 Gomez Diaz v. Barr BIA Khan, IJ A208 834 546 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 ASUMMARY 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 5th day of June, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, MICHAEL H. PARK, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ LUIS GOMEZ DIAZ, Petitioner, v. 19-625 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: EMMANUELLE G. BERDUGO (Boaz S. Morag, on the brief), Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York, NY; Andrea A. Sáenz, Molly Lauterback, Brooklyn Defender Services, Brooklyn, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: REGINA BYRD (Bernard A. Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief), for Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) is DENIED. Petitioner Luis Gomez Diaz, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of a February 25, 2019 decision of the BIA, which reversed the August 25, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granting Gomez Diaz cancellation of removal. In re Gomez Diaz, No. A208 834 546 (B.I.A. Feb. 25, 2019), rev’g No. A208 834 546 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Aug. 25, 2017). The BIA concluded that Gomez Diaz had not established that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen son (“J”), and accordingly ordered him removed to Honduras. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 2 underlying facts and procedural history. Where, as here, the BIA reverses the IJ, we review the BIA’s decision as the final agency decision. Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Applicable Law “[O]btaining cancellation of removal is a two-step process.” Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316, 319 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). First, an alien must demonstrate “that he meets the statutory eligibility requirements.” Id. at 320 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Such a showing requires that the alien prove, among other things, that his “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 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals