17-2323 Ortiz-Diaz v. Whitaker 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 24th day of January, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ JUVENTINO MIGUEL ORTIZ-DIAZ, Petitioner, v. 17-2323 MATTHEW WHITAKER,1 ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ Appearing for Petitioner: Glenn Formica (Elyssa N. Williams, on the brief), Formica Williams, P.C., New Haven, CT. Appearing for Respondent: Andrew C. MacLachlan (Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Jesi J. Carlson, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew C. MacLachlan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of 1 Matthew Whitaker, Acting United States Attorney General, is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions III per Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2). The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption accordingly. 1 Immigration Litigation, on the brief), United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) be and it hereby is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. Petitioner Juventino Miguel Ortiz-Diaz seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his motion to suppress evidence and terminate proceedings, denying cancellation of removal, and ordering his removal to Guatemala. In re Juventino Miguel Ortiz-Diaz, No. A077 547 948 (B.I.A. June 30, 2017), aff’g No. A077 547 948 (Immigration Ct. Hartford Mar. 1, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, issues, and procedural history. Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the decision of the IJ as modified by the BIA—i.e., minus the IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion, which the BIA elected not to reach. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). The only issues before us are the agency’s denial of (1) Ortiz-Diaz’s motion to suppress evidence of his alienage and terminate proceedings and (2) his application for cancellation of removal based on his failure to demonstrate the requisite hardship to a qualifying relative. I. Motion to Suppress We review factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Cotzojay ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals