Hyska v. Sessions

16-599 (L) Hyska v. Sessions BIA Montante, IJ A096 267 268 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 6th day of October, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ IRISI HYSKA, Petitioner, v. 16-599(L), 16-3086 (Con) NAC JEFFREY B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Michael P. DiRaimondo, Marialaina L. Masi, Stacy A. Huber, DiRaimondo & Masi, LLP, Melville, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Joyce C. Branda, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Janette L. Allen, Senior Litigation Counsel; Jennifer A. Bowen, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of these petitions for review of Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decisions, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petitions for review are DENIED. In the lead petition, petitioner Irisi Hyska, a native and citizen of Albania, seeks review of a February 5, 2016, decision of the BIA affirming a March 25, 2015, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Hyska’s application for cancellation of removal. In re Irisi Hyska, No. A096 267 268 (B.I.A. Feb. 5, 2016), aff’g No. A096 267 268 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Mar. 25, 2015). In the consolidated petition, Hyska seeks review of an August 5, 2016, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. In re Irisi Hyska, No. A096 267 268 (B.I.A. Aug. 5, 2016). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. I. Lead Petition We have reviewed the IJ’s and BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We lack jurisdiction to review the factual determinations underlying the denial of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Barco-Sandoval v. 2 Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 38-39 (2d Cir. 2008). We retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). To ascertain whether a petitioner raises constitutional challenges or questions of law, we “study the arguments asserted” and “determine, regardless of the rhetoric employed in the petition, whether it merely quarrels over the correctness of the factual finding or justification for the discretionary choices, in which case the court would lack jurisdiction.” Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals