19-3838 Medrano Medrano v. Garland BIA Montante, IJ A206 864 633 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 27th day of April, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., PIERRE N. LEVAL, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________ ROLANDO MEDRANO MEDRANO, AKA JASON AGOSTO CASTRO, Petitioner, v. 19-3838 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _________________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Anne E. Doebler, Buffalo, New York. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Assistant Attorney General; Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director; Tim Ramnitz, 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 Rolando Medrano Medrano, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a November 7, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a May 16, 2019 decision of an Immigration Judge ("IJ") denying cancellation of removal. In re Rolando Medrano Medrano, No. A 206 864 633 (B.I.A. Nov. 7, 2019), aff'g No. 206 864 633 (Immig. Ct. Batavia May 16, 2019). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We review the IJ's decision as modified and supplemented by the BIA and address only the agency's denial of relief as a matter of discretion. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2005). For a nonpermanent resident like Medrano Medrano, the agency may cancel removal where the applicant meets presence and character requirements, does not have disqualifying convictions, and shows "exceptional and extremely unusual 2 hardship" to a qualifying relative or relatives. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). But "cancellation of removal is a two-step process. First, an alien must prove eligibility by showing that he meets the statutory eligibility requirements. Second, assuming an alien satisfies the statutory requirements, the Attorney General in his discretion decides whether to grant or deny relief." Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316, 319-20 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our jurisdiction to review a denial of cancellation as a matter of discretion is limited to colorable constitutional claims or questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals