19-131-ag Marroquin-Alas 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 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 17th day of June, two thousand twenty. Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges. _____________________________________________________________ JOSE RONALD MARROQUIN-ALAS, Petitioner, v. 19-131-ag WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________________________ Appearing for Petitioner: Jose Perez, Syracuse, N.Y. Appearing for Respondent: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director; Annette M. Wietecha, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Petition for review of a Board of Immigrations Appeals decision. ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Jose Ronald Marroquin-Alas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a December 12, 2018, decision of the BIA affirming a November 1, 2017, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for cancellation of removal and ordering removal. In re Marroquin-Alas, No. A205 702 852 (B.I.A. Dec. 12, 2018), aff’g No. A205 702 852 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Nov. 1, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the BIA, that is, without consideration of the IJ’s finding that Marroquin-Alas did not meet his burden to show ten years’ continuous presence in United States, which the BIA did not reach, and taking note of the BIA’s discussion of the “stop-time” rule and the evidence regarding hardship. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). Because cancellation of removal is a discretionary form of relief, our jurisdiction is limited to colorable constitutional claims and questions of law, which are reviewed de novo. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009); Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 39–41 (2d Cir. 2008). As a nonpermanent resident, Marroquin-Alas is eligible for cancellation of removal if he demonstrates, inter alia, that he has been continuously present in the United States for a ten-year period preceding his application and “that [his] removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his qualifying relatives—here, his three children, who are United ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals