NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _________________ No. 17-2039 _________________ MICHAEL QUEZADA, a/k/a Alexander Cruz, a/k/a Michael Rodriguez, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent _________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A077-629-945) Immigration Judge: Daniel J. Daugherty _________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) November 17, 2017 Before: VANASKIE, SHWARTZ, FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Filed: January 8, 2018) _________________ OPINION* _________________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. FUENTES, Circuit Judge. Michael Quezada petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his application for cancellation of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Because Quezada fails to raise any colorable constitutional claims or questions of law, we do not have jurisdiction over his petition for review, and we will dismiss it. I. Quezada is a citizen of the Dominican Republic who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2000. In 2011, Quezada was convicted of Conspiracy Theft by Unlawful Taking in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey. He was also convicted of Criminal Attempt Fraudulent Use of a Credit Card in 2015 and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years. On January 27, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security served Quezada with a Notice to Appear, which charged him as removable under sections 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) and 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“Act”). After a hearing, the presiding Immigration Judge sustained the charge of removability under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) but not under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Quezada did not challenge the Immigration Judge’s decision that he was removable. Instead, he applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a), which allows the Attorney General to cancel removal of an alien who: (1) has been a lawful permanent resident for at least five 2 years, (2) has lived in the United States continuously for seven years after having been admitted in any status, and (3) has not committed an aggravated felony.1 On December 20, 2016, a hearing was held on Quezada’s application for cancellation of removal. After hearing testimony from Quezada, Quezada’s girlfriend (Marlin Polanco), Quezada’s grandmother, and Polanco’s mother, the presiding Immigration Judge denied Quezada’s application because he concluded that the reasons for allowing Quezada to remain in the country were outweighed by those against doing so. Quezada appealed the Immigration Judge’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”). He initially appealed pro se and was given until February 28, 2017 to file a brief in support of his appeal. However, Quezada subsequently retained counsel, and his counsel requested an extension of time to file the brief. The Board granted the request, and Quezada’s deadline to file was extended to March 21, 2017. On March 20, 2017, Quezada’s counsel wrote to the Board to request a second extension of time to file the brief, explaining that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals