16‐3053 Lazo v. Sessions BIA Mulligan, IJ A079 135 749 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 5th day of December, two thousand seventeen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, REENA RAGGI, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ VICTOR RUBEN LAZO, Petitioner, v. 16‐3053 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: THOMAS H. NOOTER, Freeman, Nooter & Ginsberg; New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: ANTHONY O. POTTINGER, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation (Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Erica B. Miles, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief), 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 in part and DENIED in part. Petitioner Victor Ruben Lazo, a native and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of an August 4, 2016 decision of the BIA affirming the March 10, 2014 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lazo cancellation of removal. In re Victor Ruben Lazo, No. A079 135 749 (B.I.A. Aug. 4, 2016), aff’g No. A079 135 749 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 10, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA, i.e., without the one finding that the BIA rejected. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Our review of the agency’s discretionary denial of adjustment of status is limited to colorable constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D); Barco‐Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 40‐41 (2d Cir. 2008); Guyadin v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 465, 468‐69 (2d Cir. 2006). We review such claims de novo. Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). To determine whether jurisdiction exists, we “study the arguments asserted,” and consider, “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 [we] would lack jurisdiction, or whether it instead raises a ‘constitutional claim’ or ‘question of law,’ in which case [we] could exercise ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals