17-3863 James v. Barr 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 12th day of March, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, REENA RAGGI, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges, _________________________________________ DONALD WINSTON JAMES, AKA DONALD JAMES, Petitioner, v. No. 17-3863 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.* _________________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Craig Relles, Esq., White Plains, NY. *Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General William P. Barr is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker. FOR RESPONDENT: Anna Juarez, Trial Attorney, Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, 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 Donald Winston James, a native and citizen of Guyana, petitions for review of a BIA decision reversing the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granting him cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). In re Donald James Winston, No. A042 679 830 (B.I.A. Oct. 31, 2017), rev’g No. A042 679 830 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Jan. 23, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history, to which we refer only as needed to explain our decision to dismiss the petition. Because the BIA reversed the IJ’s decision, we review the BIA’s ruling as the final agency decision. Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Our jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of cancellation of James’s removal is limited to “constitutional claims or questions of law” because the BIA denied relief as a matter of discretion and because James was ordered removed for a controlled substance offense. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (C), (D); Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 38–40 (2d Cir. 2008). To determine whether jurisdiction exists in an individual case, we “study the arguments asserted” in a petition and determine, “regardless of the rhetoric employed in the petition, whether it merely quarrels over the correctness of the factual findings or justification for the discretionary choices, in which case the court would lack jurisdiction, or whether it instead raises ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals