Jimbo-Niola v. Sessions

17-1006-ag Jimbo-Niola v. Sessions BIA Rohan, IJ A029 445 758 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 1st day of February, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, GUIDO CALABRESI, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges NOLBERTO JIMBO-NIOLA, Petitioner, v. 17-1006 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. FOR PETITIONER: Keith S. Barnett, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stefanie Notarino Hennes, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED. Petitioner Nolberto Jimbo-Niola (“petitioner” or “Jimbo-Niola”), a native and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a March 7, 2017, decision of the BIA, granting reconsideration of an earlier BIA decision and affirming a March 11, 2016, decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) ordering Jimbo- Niola removed to Ecuador. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal. DISCUSSION We review both the IJ’s decision and the BIA’s second, reconsidered decision “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001) (when the BIA grants reconsideration it “takes itself back in time and looks at the case as though a decision had never been entered.”). Our jurisdiction to review the denial of adjustment of status is limited to “constitutional claims or questions of law,” which we review de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). In determining whether a petitioner raises a constitutional challenge or question of law, we must “study the arguments asserted [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.” Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir. 2006). We do not have jurisdiction to consider ...

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