19-1709 Morquecho Garcia v. Garland BIA Straus, IJ A 205 890 441/442 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 13th day of May, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ MARTHA LUCIA MORQUECHO GARCIA, AKA MARTHA MORQUECHO, AKA MARTHA LUCIA, ANGEL GABRIEL MORQUECHO SAICO, AKA ANGEL MORQUECHO, Petitioners, v. 19-1709 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONERS: James A. Welcome, Waterbury, CT. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Jessica A. Dawgert, Senior Litigation Counsel; Giovanni B. Di Maggio, Trial Attorney, 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. Petitioners Martha Lucia Morquecho Garcia and Angel Gabriel Morquecho Saico, natives and citizens of Ecuador, seek review of a May 16, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a January 23, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for cancellation of removal. In re Morquecho Garcia, Morquecho Saico, Nos. A 205 890 441/442 (B.I.A. May 16, 2019), aff’g Nos. A 205 890 441/442 (Immigr. Ct. Hartford Jan. 23, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. See Wangchuck v. DHS, 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). Petitioners applied for cancellation of removal, which is available to non- permanent residents who meet presence and character requirements and, as relevant here, “establish[] that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to” a qualifying relative who is a U.S. citizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Petitioners alleged that removal to rural Ecuador would cause hardship to their two U.S. citizen sons, primarily because of the disparity in school quality. Our review of this hardship determination is limited to colorable constitutional claims and to questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 36 (2d Cir. 2008). An error of law may arise if the agency applies the wrong legal standard, 2 see id. at 40, or “overlook[s]” or “seriously mischaracterize[s]” the facts, Mendez v. Holder, 566 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals