19-2 Lulea v. Barr BIA Loprest, IJ A097 981 538 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 19th day of February, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., BARRINGTON D. PARKER, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ PUIU VALI LULEA, Petitioner, v. No. 19-2 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: MICHAEL P. DIRAIMONDO, DiRaimondo & Masi, PC, Bohemia, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: ANDREW N. O’MALLEY, Senior Litigation Counsel (Joseph Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, on the brief), for the 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 GRANTED. Petitioner Puiu Vali Lulea, a native and citizen of Romania, seeks review of a decision of the BIA affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Lulea’s application for cancellation of removal, relief available to certain nonpermanent residents. In re Puiu Vali Lulea, No. A 097 981 538 (B.I.A. Dec. 7, 2018), aff’g No. A 097 981 538 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Oct. 31, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). At the outset, Lulea claims that the IJ who issued the removal order in 2017 lacked jurisdiction because a different IJ presided over the hearings, which were conducted in 2013. No authority establishes that an alien is entitled to have a particular IJ render a decision in a matter. Here, the second IJ familiarized himself with the record before issuing a decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.2(b) (notice to appear vests jurisdiction in immigration court and “immigration judges”). The regulations do not specify that a notice to appear vests jurisdiction in proceedings before 2 a particular judge. Accordingly, the fact that a second IJ issued the decision does not invalidate the resulting order or provide a basis for remand. Other considerations, however, require us to remand the cause for further consideration of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals