NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 17-3570 _____________ MILTON MODESTO JARAMA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (No. A073-576-642) Immigration Judge: John P. Ellington ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) December 9, 2019 ______________ Before: RESTREPO, ROTH and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: March 12, 2020) ______________ OPINION* ______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. RESTREPO, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Milton Modesto Jarama petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of adjustment of status under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). I Jarama is a native and citizen of Ecuador who has resided in the United States since 1988. In March 2014, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) charging him as inadmissible. In the course of proceedings, Jarama applied for adjustment of status as relief from removal. At a May 30, 2017 final hearing, the IJ denied Jarama’s application for adjustment of status both “as a matter of statutory eligibility and as a matter of discretion” and ordered him removed. App. A_17. Jarama appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. In an October 23, 2017 opinion, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s discretionary denial of adjustment of status and thus declined to address statutory eligibility. Reviewing the IJ’s discretionary decision de novo, the BIA considered the following positive and negative factors: The respondent has presented positive factors which generally weigh in favor of granting his application. The respondent, who has resided in the United States for nearly 30 years, has strong family ties to this country, including his spouse and three children, and has apparently maintained gainful employment in this country. His removal from the United States would result in a significant level of hardship to himself and his family. The respondent’s criminal record is a serious adverse factor. Aside from his arrests not resulting in convictions, the respondent was convicted of drunk driving offenses in 1997, 2012, 2016, and 2017, and other 2 offenses, such as tampering with a public record in 2006 and recklessly endangering another person in 2012. While the respondent has testified regarding an effort to seek rehabilitation, he demonstrated a tendency to minimize his conduct. He continued to drive after his license was suspended in approximately 2011 and has not complied with this nation’s tax laws for more than a decade. App. A_2–3 (citations omitted). Considering the “totality of the circumstances,” the BIA affirmed the IJ’s discretionary decision. App. A_3. The BIA declined to remand the case to a different IJ based on Jarama’s claim that the IJ failed to maintain “judicial objectivity.” App. A_3. On this point, the BIA stated: Here, the respondent was provided a reasonable opportunity to present the merits ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals